UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISTOPHER HARRIS
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Gregory, May 21, 2018,
Sentencing – A defendant who cut his ankle monitor and fled to Thailand prior to sentencing was not required to receive an “acceptance of responsibility” sentence reduction even though he participated in rehab and “paid the court fee for this case.”

“we must affirm Harris’s sentence despite sharing the district court’s misgivings about imposing a very lengthy sentence for a marijuana offense.”
The sentencing court had an issue with the sentence involved… for someone with a previous kidnapping conviction who fled to Thailand rather than face sentencing?

“not only did Harris cut his ankle monitor while out on bond, he fled to a distant country and started a family—clearly evincing a desire to evade responsibility indefinitely if not permanently.”

Facts:
Between 2010 and 2011, Christopher Harris took part in a conspiracy to grow and distribute marijuana. Officers seized 499 marijuana plants from a co-defendant’s motel before searching Harris’s residence.
The Government claimed that 108 marijuana plants were seized from Harris’ residence.
Harris pled guilty, but maintained that he “only” had 89 plants.
Nevertheless, the court found him guilty of manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance.
Before sentencing, Harris cut his ankle monitor, fled to Thailand, married a Thai national, and impregnated her.
Harris was arrested in 2012 and returned to the United States for sentencing.
Harris, who had a prior North Carolina conviction for kidnapping, was determined to be a career offender. His sentencing guidelines were 360 months to life.
In light of the “nationwide trend towards marijuana legalization,” the sentencing judge varied downwards by 10 years and sentenced Harris to 240 months.
However, Harris’ conviction was later vacated because he received a sentence enhancement for having “100 or more marihuana plants” despite having disputed the number of plants during his plea agreement.
Harris then plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants and was sentenced once again to 240 months.
At his sentencing hearing, Harris requested that his sentence be reduced because he “accepted responsibility” for his actions. However, the sentencing court denied this request because of Harris’ escape to Thailand.
Harris also requested that the memo he submitted in support of his sentencing be “sealed” from public view, but this was denied.
Harris appealed, arguing that the sentencing court should have given him credit for accepting responsibility, that his kidnapping conviction does not make him a career offender, and that the court should have sealed his memo from public view

Held: The Fourth Circuit found that his sentencing was appropriate, but that the memo he submitted should have been sealed.

USSG – Acceptance of Responsibility – A defendant may have his offense level reduced by up to 2 levels if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense”

USSG – Acceptance of Responsibility – Examples of accepting responsibility include:
– voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal conduct or associations
– voluntary payment of restitution prior to a finding of guilt
– voluntary surrender to authorities promptly after the offense
– voluntary assistance to authorities in the recovery of the fruits and tools of the offense
– voluntary resignation from the office or position held during the commission of the offense
– post-offense rehabilitative efforts (e.g., counseling or drug treatment)
– the timeliness of the defendant’s conduct in accepting responsibility

USSG – Acceptance of Responsibility – A defendant who obstructs justice is not eligible for a sentence reduction for accepting responsibility unless there are “extraordinary” circumstances showing that the defendant “has done something atypical or beyond the ordinary course either to take responsibility or to minimize the effects of his own obstruction to merit the reduction.”

From the Case: “Not only did Harris cut his ankle monitor while out on bond, he fled to a distant country and started a family—clearly evincing a desire to evade responsibility indefinitely if not permanently.”

USSG – North Carolina’s Crime of Kidnapping is a “crime of violence” under the US Sentencing Guidelines

Sealing Court Records – There is a right for the public to “inspect and copy judicial records and documents.” However, this can be overcome if there is a competing interest that outweighs it.

Sealing Court Records – Restricting access to records may be justified when done to protect “the physical and psychological well-being of individuals related to the litigation, including family members and particularly minors”

From the Case: The sentencing court erred by not “allowing Harris to file a redacted version of the memorandum. The minor redaction here of the names of Harris’s wife and child and their photographs would protect their privacy interests without undermining any of the public interest in access to the judicial process, as such information is not material to understanding Harris’s case. Accordingly, Harris should have been allowed to submit his full sentencing memorandum to the court in aid of his defense, under seal, and he should have been required to submit a redacted version that is publicly accessible.”