United States v. Joe Morris , 422 F. App'x 553 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-3131
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court of the Eastern
    * District of Arkansas.
    Joe Justin Morris,                       *
    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    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.
    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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-3131

Citation Numbers: 422 F. App'x 553

Judges: Arnold, Murphy, Per Curiam, Smith

Filed Date: 8/3/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023