Court Opinion

ID: 993396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:07:16.633262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:48:16.647788
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 96-4794

DARRELL HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.
(CR-92-61)

Submitted: July 29, 1997

Decided: November 5, 1997

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert H. Hale, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, John S.
Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Harris appeals the district court's order revoking his term
of supervised release and imposing a new period of imprisonment.
Harris was serving a three year term of supervised release subsequent
to completing a forty-one month sentence for armed bank robbery.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1994). After Harris admitted three viola-
tions of the conditions of his supervised release, the district court sen-
tenced Harris to three years in prison. In this appeal, Harris contends
that the district court erred by considering the sufficiency of the origi-
nal sentence imposed for his conviction, rather than the factors autho-
rized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (1994), in revoking his supervised release
and imposing the three-year sentence. Finding no abuse of discretion
on the part of the district court, we affirm.

This court reviews the district court's order imposing a term of
imprisonment for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis,
53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). An abuse of the district court's
discretion occurs when the court fails or refuses to exercise its discre-
tion or when the court's exercise of discretion is flawed by an errone-
ous legal or factual premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239
(4th Cir. 1993). Harris contends that the district court's exercise of its
discretion was flawed by an erroneous legal premise in that the suffi-
ciency of the original sentence is not among the factors of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553 (1994) enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583 as appropriate for con-
sideration in the revocation of a term of supervised release.

Although the district court considered the sufficiency of the origi-
nal sentence at some length, the court also properly considered the
need "to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct" and "to pro-
tect the public from further crimes of the defendant." 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). The district court specifically noted its concern regarding
Harris's status as a recidivist. As a result, we do not find that the dis-

                     2
trict court's discretion was flawed by an erroneous legal premise.
Consequently, there was no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3