United States of America v. Robert Vincent Harris

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3497
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Robert Vincent Harris
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: April 24, 2026
Filed: April 29, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Harris appeals after the district court1 found him guilty of two drug
offenses following a bench trial, and sentenced him to 240 months in prison. On
1The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

appeal, Harris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
distribution of fentanyl resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1). Specifically, he argues the evidence that he allowed the victim
to use some of his personal quantity of fentanyl was insufficient to show distribution.
Upon careful review, we conclude there was sufficient evidence Harris
distributed fentanyl, even if there was no hand-to-hand transfer. See United States
v. Monteer, 83 F.4th 1119, 1122 (8th Cir. 2023) (applying same review standard to
bench trial and jury verdicts for sufficiency-of-evidence challenges; upholding verdict
if reasonable factfinder could find offense proven beyond reasonable doubt); United
States v. Gentry, 555 F.3d 659, 664 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing sufficiency-of-
evidence challenges, including challenges hinging on interpretation of statute, de
novo, considering evidence in light most favorable to government). Our cases make
clear that a defendant distributes a controlled substance within the statutory meaning
of that term “anytime he gives it to a third party.” See United States v. Parker, 993
F.3d 595, 605 (8th Cir. 2021); see also United States v. Deng, 104 F.4th 1052, 1055
(8th Cir.) (because statute at issue, as interpreted by our case law, made clear that
conduct in question was proscribed, there was no need to resort to rule of lenity), cert.
denied, 145 S. Ct. 348 (2024). Here, the record established Harris obtained a
substance he was certain was fentanyl, invited the victim to his apartment when she
sought heroin from him, brought out a mirror with fentanyl on it, cut a line, snorted
some of the line, and allowed the victim to consume the remainder through a straw
he gave her. See United States v. Frommelt, 971 F.3d 823, 830 (8th Cir. 2020)
(sufficient evidence defendant distributed drugs when he set them out on table in his
home while hosting guests and left line for guest staying in his bedroom).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --