United States of America v. Edward Green Harrison

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3347
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Edward Green Harrison
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: April 11, 2023
Filed: May 8, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Edward Green Harrison pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
The district court sentenced him to life in prison, later reduced to 313 months, with
six years of supervised release. He was released in 2021. He violated the conditions

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
of release by using cocaine. The district court1 revoked his supervised release,
imposing a sentence of time served, with three years of supervised release. Within
days, he tested positive for cocaine. The probation office directed him to obtain
substance abuse and mental health evaluations. Twice more he tested positive for
cocaine. He agreed to a home confinement condition pending placement in a drug
treatment program. He violated this condition. The district court revoked his
supervised release, sentencing him within the guidelines to 8 months in prison. He
appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
I.
Harrison argues the district court erred in finding he violated the home
confinement condition of release. A court may revoke a defendant’s supervised
release if it finds a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States
v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th Cir. 2008). This court reviews the factual
finding that a violation occurred for clear error. Id.
Harrison’s home confinement condition stated:
You must participate in home confinement without the utilization of
electronic monitoring equipment until a bed is available at inpatient
treatment. During this time, you must remain at your place of residence
except for employment, medical appointments, or substance abuse
testing and treatment, and other activities approved in advance by the
Probation Officer. You must provide the Probation Officer with
requested documentation. You must follow all program rules.
On October 7, 2022, Harrison’s probation officer visited his house. He was
not home. He later texted the probation officer that he had been picking up his
paycheck. The probation officer told him that he could not leave his house “for any
reason other than to go to work (work your shift, not pick up paychecks) or
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
treatment.” For the next five days, Harrison was not in contact with his probation
officer. When he finally met with his officer, Harrison refused to give a urine
sample.
The probation officer petitioned for an arrest warrant, asserting a violation of
the home confinement condition and failure to give a urine test. Harrison stipulated
to failure to comply with drug testing. He contested the home confinement violation,
arguing that picking up his paycheck was “employment.” Hearing testimony from
Harrison and his probation officer, the district court found violations of both
conditions. About the home confinement condition, it said:
Even if there was some confusion—I don’t think there was, but even if
there was confusion about whether or not the defendant was allowed to
pick up his paychecks, he was still required to communicate when he
left his house and when he was home.
He could have picked up his paycheck en route to work. That was
certainly something that probably would have been permitted by the
probation office. He could have asked the probation office for
permission to go pick up his paycheck and cash the check. That
probably would have been granted as well, but he didn’t do either of
those things.
Then he was explicitly told on October 8 that he needed to text his
probation officer every time he got home and every time he left his
house, and he proceeded to drop out of contact with her entirely for the
next five days. He acknowledges he left his home for those periods of
time and didn’t touch base with her. He only finally responded to her
when she reached out to his sister in the hopes that we could avoid
issuing a warrant for him for absconding.
It’s clear the defendant wants to do what the defendant wants to do the
way he wants to do it. The problem for him is that is just not how
supervised release works.

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that, at the very least, Harrison
violated the home confinement condition for the five days when he left his house
and did not contact his probation officer.
II.
Harrison asserts his bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Thigpen, 848 F.3d 841, 847 (8th Cir. 2017).
An abuse of discretion occurs when the court “fails to consider a relevant factor that
should have received significant weight,” “gives significant weight to an improper
or irrelevant factor,” or makes a “clear error of judgment” in weighing appropriate
factors. United States v. Funke, 846 F.3d 998, 1000 (8th Cir. 2017). “[I]t will be
the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above,
or below the applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
The district court thoroughly discussed the reasons for the sentence:
I reduced your sentence. I reduced your supervised release.
You came out, and you caused problems, and I again gave you another
chance, and I again reduced your supervised release. When it was, in
fact, mandatory that I revoke you, I gave you a time-served sentence,
and I turned you loose again. You continued to use, and instead of
revoking you, I gave you home confinement.
The conditions of home confinement are not onerous. You’re told to
text your probation officer when you leave for work and text your
officer when you get home. You refused to do that. You’re to drug
test. You show up, you’re belligerent, you’re angry, you won’t provide
a urine specimen, and when you do, it tests positive for a variety of
drugs. That’s not an unreasonable request that society has made of you
that you stay off drugs and that you stay in touch with us.

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
And then you show up and you have, you know, the attitude you have.
And while you’re in jail pending resolution of this situation, you
manage to acquire and use drugs in the correctional institution and
involve somebody else in it. That is not speaking well to any kind of
rehabilitative efforts you’ve made.
So I have tried all the things I know how to try outside of putting you
back in custody, and you have opted not to take any of those
opportunities I have given you.
You had originally a ten-year term of supervised release. I have cut that
down to three years. I am not going to reward you for behaving badly
by taking you off of supervised release. You need to learn to live a life
without drugs because when you buy crack cocaine, when you buy
cocaine, when you buy marijuana, you are involving yourself with drug
dealers who are breaking the law, and you are going to get sucked back
into the world that cost you 23 years of your life. That’s why we’re
trying to keep you sober. That’s why we’re trying to keep you away
from those types of influences.
And you may have been a run-of-the-mill drug dealer, as you call
yourself, back when this federal prosecution happened, but you had
some ugly stuff on your criminal record, and that’s part of why you
ended up with a long sentence. You were a category VI offender. You
had convictions for burglary, for robbery, for theft, for delivery of crack
cocaine, for escaping, for possessing cocaine.
So this is not, you know, the big bad government out to get you unfairly.
This is a government trying to work with you through decades of
changing norms and changing ideas, but your attitude that you’ve been
the victim here is not helpful, and it’s not going to get you where you
want to get.
The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors. Although Harrison
disagrees with the weight assigned to each factor, this does not justify reversal. See
United States v. Moua, 895 F.3d 556, 560 (8th Cir. 2018) (describing district court’s
“wide latitude” to “assign some factors greater weight than others”). The district
court was well within its discretion in imposing the sentence.

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 6 of 6 --