United States v. Christopher Harris, 890 F.3d 480

Background

Christopher Harris participated in a 2010–2011 conspiracy to grow and distribute marijuana; agents seized hundreds of plants from co-conspirators and a disputed number from Harris.
Harris pleaded guilty; dispute over whether agents seized ≥100 plants affected statutory maximum and led to his conviction being vacated under Apprendi on a § 2255 motion.
After vacatur, Harris pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 100+ plants; at resentencing the Government pursued a career-offender enhancement based on a prior North Carolina second-degree kidnapping conviction.
The district court denied a two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because Harris fled to Thailand (cutting his ankle monitor), discounted his rehabilitation evidence, cited national marijuana-legalization trends to justify a downward variance, and imposed 240 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal Harris challenged (1) adequacy of the resentencing (individualized consideration), (2) denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, (3) career-offender enhancement (whether NC kidnapping is a crime of violence), (4) Eighth Amendment disproportionality; he also sought sealing of his sentencing memorandum.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence (finding procedural and substantive rulings proper under circuit precedent) but reversed the denial of sealing and remanded to permit a sealed filing and a redacted public version protecting family privacy.

Issues

Issue	Harris's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether district court conducted a de novo, individualized resentencing	District court failed to meaningfully consider non‑frivolous mitigation and merely sought to reinstate prior sentence	Court held it conducted an individualized hearing, addressed mitigation, and explained reasons for declining further reduction	Affirmed — sentencing explanation and individualized consideration were adequate
Whether Harris was entitled to a 2‑level acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction despite obstruction enhancement for flight	Post‑conviction rehabilitation and admissions show extraordinary acceptance warranting reduction	Flight to Thailand (cutting ankle monitor, fleeing, starting family abroad) constituted obstruction; no record of extraordinary mitigation to overcome obstruction	Affirmed — district court not clearly erroneous in denying the reduction
Whether North Carolina second‑degree kidnapping is a "crime of violence" under § 4B1.2 (career‑offender)	Harris argued NC kidnapping broader than generic kidnapping and thus not categorically a crime of violence	Government relied on Guideline commentary (kidnapping listed) and Fourth Circuit precedent holding NC kidnapping fits generic definition	Affirmed — under binding Fourth Circuit precedent NC kidnapping is a crime of violence; career‑offender enhancement proper
Whether the career‑offender enhancement violates the Eighth Amendment (facial or as‑applied)	Enhancement yields grossly disproportionate sentence to punishable conduct	Enhancement is a recidivist enhancement; existing Supreme Court precedent permits severe recidivist sentences and record insufficient to show plain‑error Eighth Amendment violation	Rejected under plain‑error review; no clear Eighth Amendment violation shown

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (district court must address non‑frivolous mitigation and explain sentence sufficiently for meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Peterson, 629 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2011) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative and can add example offenses unless inconsistent with the Guideline)
United States v. Flores-Granados, 783 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2015) (North Carolina kidnapping fits within the generic definition of kidnapping)
United States v. May, 359 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 2004) (defendant bears burden to prove acceptance of responsibility by a preponderance)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding severe recidivist punishment under Three‑Strikes statute)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (Eighth Amendment proportionality inquiry may invalidate extreme recidivist sentences in certain circumstances)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding harsh recidivist sentence under California three‑strikes law)
Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (Forty‑year sentence for certain marijuana offenses was not grossly disproportionate)