Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Harris, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Tony O'Neal Harris's motion for reduction of sentence. Harris alleged that he was sentenced under an outdated 1994 version of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a higher base offense level than permitted. However, the court reviewed the record and found that Harris was actually sentenced according to the 1995 Guidelines Manual. Under this version, his base offense level was properly determined to be 38, which after adjustments resulted in a total offense level of 37. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Harris's motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-12-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6900

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Tony O'Neal Harris's motion for reduction of sentence. Harris alleged that he was sentenced under an outdated 1994 version of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a higher base offense level than permitted. However, the court reviewed the record and found that Harris was actually sentenced according to the 1995 Guidelines Manual. Under this version, his base offense level was properly determined to be 38, which after adjustments resulted in a total offense level of 37. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Harris's motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Harris, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Tony O'Neal Harris's motion for reduction of sentence. Harris alleged that he was sentenced under an outdated 1994 version of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a higher base offense level than permitted. However, the court reviewed the record and found that Harris was actually sentenced according to the 1995 Guidelines Manual. Under this version, his base offense level was properly determined to be 38, which after adjustments resulted in a total offense level of 37. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of Harris's motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6900

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TONY O'NEAL HARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-95-912)
    Submitted:

    November 20, 1997

    Decided:

    December 10, 1997

    Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tony O'Neal Harris, Appellant Pro Se. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tony O'Neal Harris appeals the district court's order denying
    his motion for reduction of sentence. Harris alleges that he was
    sentenced under a pre-1994 version of U.S. Sentencing Commission,
    Guidelines Manual, 2D1.1(c), resulting in a base offense level
    higher than that permissible under the Guidelines Manual in effect
    as of November, 1994. We have reviewed the record and find his
    factual assertion to be incorrect. Harris's sentence was computed
    according to the 1995 edition of the Guidelines Manual. He did
    receive a base offense level of 38 which, after subsequent adjustments, resulted in a total offense level of 37. Therefore, we
    affirm the district court's denial of his motion for reduction. 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

    You might also like