US v. Anturan Morri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00067-JRS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999373764]. [13-4844]

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 1 of 8

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4844

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTURAN DAQUAN MORRIS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00067-JRS-1)

Submitted:

April 29, 2014

Decided:

June 11, 2014

Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Alexandria,
Virginia, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, Olivia L. Norman, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 2 of 8

PER CURIAM:
Anturan Daquan Morris appeals his conviction for being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1) and his resulting 51-month sentence.

For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

I.
A.
At

trial,

the

government

presented

evidence

that,

on

December 12, 2012, Officers Joachin Okonkwo and James A. Spada
of the Richmond Police Department approached a man whom they
recognized by sight but not by name.

They asked him to stop,

but the man fled and the officers pursued him.

Officer Okonkwo

testified that while he lost sight of the man he was chasing a
few times, those lapses were “just momentary.”

J.A. 46.

During

the chase, Officer Spada saw the man remove a firearm from his
clothing and discard it in the street.

At the end of the chase,

the man was apprehended and identified as Morris.

Morris told

the officers that he carried the gun, but only for protection.
No witness was asked to perform a courtroom identification
of

Morris.

When

asked

on

direct

examination,

“[d]o

you

recognize Mr. Morris here today?” Officer Spada testified that
he did, J.A. 69, although the record does not show that he
pointed or gestured to Morris.

When asked if there was “any
2

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 3 of 8

question in [his] mind” that the individual who threw the gun
was “Mr. Morris,” Officer Spada answered that there was “[n]o
question at all.”

J.A. 77.

Following the government’s case in

chief, Morris moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.
R. Crim. P. 29.

That motion was denied.

A jury found Morris

guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
B.
The presentence report (“PSR”) placed Morris at an offense
level of 20 and a criminal history category of IV.
Guidelines sentence ranged from 51 to 63 months.
object

to

the

PSR

or

the

Guidelines

His advisory
Morris did not

calculation.

At

the

sentencing hearing, the district court accepted the PSR, adopted
its findings, and then heard the parties’ arguments.
Morris argued for a below-Guidelines sentence of 42 months
because he did not fire the gun he was convicted of possessing
and because his personal history and relative youth placed him
at a particularly high risk of criminality.
that

his

offenses

criminal
and

that

history
a

was

42-month

Morris also argued

exaggerated
sentence

by

would

punishment, as the longest he had ever received.

non-serious
provide

just

The government

argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range.
The

district

court

sentenced

Morris

to

51

months’

imprisonment, saying that it had “considered all the arguments
of the parties” and that it was denying Morris’s motion for a
3

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 4 of 8

below-Guidelines sentence “primarily because you can’t run from
your

history.

appropriate.”

That

Guidelines

J.A. 201.

Range

was

earned

and

is

This appeal followed.

II.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a Rule 29
motion for judgment of acquittal.

United States v. Green, 599

F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010).

A guilty verdict survives “if,

viewing

light

the

evidence

in

the

most

favorable

to

the

prosecution, the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.”
United

States

v.

Smith,

451

F.3d

209,

216

(4th

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Cir.

2006)

We may only

set aside a conviction if “no rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.”

United States v. Royal, 731 F.3d 333, 337 (4th Cir.

2013).
We review criminal sentences for substantive and procedural
reasonableness using an abuse of discretion standard.

United

States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010).

If we

find an abuse of discretion, the sentence can stand only if the
error was harmless.

Id.

4

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 5 of 8

III.
Morris

argues

that

the

government

did

not

present

sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict for two
reasons.
First, Morris argues that because no witness identified him
in court, the government did not present sufficient evidence of
his

identity

as

the

man

who

possessed

the

firearm.

This

argument is meritless because a courtroom identification is not
required to show sufficient evidence of a defendant’s identity
if other evidence of identity is sufficient.

United States v.

Taylor, 900 F.2d 779, 782 (4th Cir. 1990) (testimony of one
witness who identified the defendant by name as the person who
committed the crime was sufficient evidence of the defendant’s
identity, even without a courtroom identification).
Second, Morris argues that the government’s evidence of his
identity

as

the

insufficient.
that

a

who

We cannot agree.

defendant

sufficient

individual

was

evidence

the

of

a

possessed

the

firearm

was

The testimony of one witness

person

who

defendant’s

committed

the

identity

to

crime

is

support

a

conviction.

United States v. Holley, 502 F.2d 273, 274 (4th

Cir. 1974).

At trial, the jury heard extensive testimony from

multiple witnesses who saw, chased, and apprehended Morris, and
who

recognized

encounter.

him

as

the

same

individual

throughout

the

Officer Spada testified that he saw Morris discard
5

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 6 of 8

the firearm, and that Morris admitted to possessing the firearm.
These

facts

constituted

substantial

evidence

that

Morris

possessed the firearm.

IV.
Morris

next

unreasonable

argues

because

that

the

his

district

sentence
court

is

did

procedurally

not

provide

a

sufficiently individualized explanation for choosing a 51-month
sentence,

rejecting

sentence.
sentence

We
was

Morris’s

may

arguments

presume

substantively

that

for

a

Morris’s

reasonable.

below-Guidelines
within-Guidelines

United

States

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216–17 (4th Cir. 2010).

v.

However,

we need not reach the question of whether the district court
erred.
of

Even if we assume that the district court’s explanation

Morris’s

sentence

was

insufficient,

we

agree

with

the

government that any error was harmless.
For a procedural sentencing error to be found harmless, the
government must show that the error “did not have a substantial
and

injurious

influence

on

the

result.”

United

States

v.

Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).

The government bears the burden of

showing that the error was harmless, but it can meet this burden
by showing that it would be “unrealistic” to think that the
error affected the sentence length.
6

Id. at 840.

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 7 of 8

To determine whether a district court’s failure to explain
a

sentencing

decision

primary factors.

was

harmless

error,

we

consider

two

The first is the strength or weakness of a

party’s arguments that the district court did not address.
at 839–40.

The second is an indication in the record that the

district court considered and understood those arguments.
Morris’s
weak.

Id.

Like

arguments
the

for

a

defendant’s

below-Guidelines
arguments

in

Id.

sentence

Boulware,

were

many

of

Morris’s arguments were based on circumstances that are “not
atypical for a defendant.”
arguments
people.
was

about

his

Id. at 840.

personal

history

He admits that his

could

be

made

by

many

Similarly, Morris’s argument that his criminal history

exaggerated

substantial.

was

weak

because

his

criminal

history

was

His argument that he did not use the firearm he

was convicted of possessing, and only carried it for protection,
has little to do with why he should be sentenced below the
Guidelines range for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Where, as here, the government can show that the district
court

fully

considered

a

party’s

arguments

for

a

particular

sentence, but failed to explicitly address them, that failure is
a harmless error.

Boulware, 604 F.3d at 840.

In the present

case, the district court’s statement that it had “considered all
of the arguments of the parties,” J.A. 201 (emphasis added),

7

Appeal: 13-4844

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/11/2014

Pg: 8 of 8

demonstrates that it fully considered Morris’s arguments for a
below-Guidelines sentence.
Considering these facts, we can say with “fair assurance”
that

that

the

district

court

would

not

impose

a

different

sentence if it were forced to explain its reasoning, and the
district

court’s

“substantial

failure

and

to

injurious

do

so

could

influence”

on

not

have

Morris’s

had

a

sentence.

Boulware, 604 F.3d at 840, 838 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
assume

Morris’s

For these reasons, we hold that even if we

sentence

was

procedurally

unreasonable,

any

error was harmless.

V.
Accordingly,
We

dispense

contentions

we

with
are

affirm

oral

Morris’s

argument

adequately

conviction

because

presented

in

and

sentence.

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

8