United States v. Lashawn Harris, 20-2674

Lashawn Harris pled guilty to distributing methamphetamine; originally sentenced as a Career Offender to 240 months.
This court reversed the Career Offender determination and remanded (United States v. Harris), leading to resentencing.
At resentencing the Guidelines range was 87–108 months, but the district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 132 months.
The PSR and FBI Task Force Officer testimony described multiple violent incidents (shootings, attacks on officers), some resulting in convictions and others uncharged.
Harris objected that the district court relied on uncharged allegations and hearsay lacking reliable support; the government defended use of the records and officer testimony to rebut Harris’s challenge to the PSR.
The district court found the PSR and officer testimony sufficiently reliable, imposed an upward variance to protect the public, and this appeal followed.

Issue	Harris's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness — reliance on uncharged allegations/hearsay	District court erred by relying on uncharged, objected-to allegations and uncorroborated hearsay not supported by reliable record evidence	Court may consider PSR and reliable hearsay at sentencing; officer testimony was offered to rebut Harris’s attacks on PSR reliability	Affirmed — district court did not clearly err; PSR and officer testimony provided sufficiently reliable support for findings
Substantive reasonableness — upward variance to 132 months	Variance was substantively unreasonable and an abuse of discretion given Guidelines range	Upward variance justified by Harris’s history, violent conduct, and need to protect public	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court properly weighed history/character and public protection

United States v. Harris, 950 F.3d 1015 (prior reversal of Career Offender determination leading to resentencing)
United States v. Bennett, 659 F.3d 711 (standards of appellate review for Guidelines application and factual findings)
United States v. Martin, 777 F.3d 984 (sentencing facts must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence)
United States v. Gant, 663 F.3d 1023 (district court may consider any relevant information at sentencing)
United States v. Schlosser, 558 F.3d 736 (police reports and hearsay may support sentencing when reliable)
United States v. Shackelford, 462 F.3d 794 (hearsay admissible at sentencing if sufficiently reliable)
United States v. Harrison, 809 F.3d 420 (courts may rely on police reports and observations for sentencing)
United States v. Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153 (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Parker, 762 F.3d 801 (upholding upward variance on resentencing)
United States v. Killian, 803 Fed. Appx. 989 (district court may consider prior arrests for upward variance when PSR recites sufficient facts)
United States v. Lewis, 576 Fed. Appx. 629 (prior criminal conduct, even if uncharged or acquitted, may inform sentencing)