United States v. Joe Morri

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, MORRIS S. ARNOLD and LAVENSKI R. SMITH (UNPUBLISHED) [3814195] [10-3131]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3131 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Joe Justin Morris, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court of the Eastern * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 13, 2011 Filed: August 3, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Joe Morris appeals from his sentence of 11 months for violating the terms of the supervised release that followed his conviction for drug offenses. Morris does not contend that the district court1 erred in calculating his advisory guidelines range, which was 8 to 14 months. He argues, instead, that his sentence is unreasonable. A sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, United States v. Frausto, 636 F.3d 992, 997 (8th Cir. 2011), and we see nothing in this 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 10-3131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2011 Entry ID: 3814195 record that could overcome that presumption. In addition to the specific violations which the district court, on an ample record, found him guilty of, Morris had a history of positive tests for drugs during his supervision, had his conditions of release modified, and failed to appear at his first revocation hearing. After an extended hearing, at which witnesses appeared and Morris himself testified and allocuted, the district court carefully considered the record, the relevant factors (including those in mitigation), and fixed a sentence within the guidelines. There is no clear error in weighing relevant matters, see United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912, 921 (8th Cir.2010), and so no abuse of discretion, even if there had been evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness, which there was not. Affirmed. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 10-3131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2011 Entry ID: 3814195

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?