Court Opinion

ID: 9363377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:00:38.620916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.624972
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4616      Doc: 35         Filed: 01/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4616

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL HARRIOT, a/k/a Lanky, a/k/a Donovan Smith, a/k/a Richard Onyett,
        a/k/a Bernard Barber, a/k/a James D. Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00341-MBS-3)

        Submitted: December 20, 2022                                      Decided: January 13, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Wells Dickson, Jr., WELLS DICKSON, PA, Kingstree, South Carolina,
        for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Elliott B. Daniels, Assistant
        U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4616      Doc: 35          Filed: 01/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Harriot appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a reduced

        sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.

        5194. While Harriot primarily requested a sentence of time served, his counsel argued in

        the alternative for a downward variance based on the disparity between the powder and

        crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines, and counsel proposed an advisory Guidelines range

        of 360 months to life imprisonment to account for the disparity. The district court declined

        to reduce Harriot’s sentence to time served, but granted him a variance, adopted counsel’s

        proposed Guidelines range, and reduced Harriot’s sentence to 360 months’ imprisonment.

        On appeal, Harriot contends that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines range.

               We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision of whether to grant a

        reduction under the First Step Act. United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir.

        2020). However, “the invited error doctrine recognizes that a court cannot be asked by

        counsel to take a step in a case and later be convicted of error, because it has complied with

        such request.” United States v. Hasson, 26 F.4th 610, 621 n.4 (4th Cir.) (cleaned up), cert.

        denied, 143 S. Ct. 310 (2022). Because the district court adopted Harriot’s alternative

        argument and proposed Guidelines range, the invited error doctrine applies and he has thus

        waived the argument he seeks to advance on appeal. See United States v. Shea, 989 F.3d

        271, 282 (4th Cir. 2021).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4616      Doc: 35         Filed: 01/13/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Therefore, 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 this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     3