After a review of the case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the 115-month prison sentence given to Devontae Jammell Morris for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The court found the original sentence to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Background of the Case
The case began when a Glock 19 9mm semiautomatic pistol was discovered in Morris’s car. He pleaded guilty to violating federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8), which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) played a crucial role in determining the sentence. The PSI established a base offense level of 26. This was because the firearm was found with an extended magazine, and Morris had at least two prior felony convictions for either crimes of violence or drug-related offenses.
To support this enhanced base offense level, the PSI cited two prior convictions:
* A 2019 Georgia conviction for aggravated assault, where Morris fired a gun at a residence occupied by three women.
* A 2019 Georgia conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine.
The PSI also included reductions for Morris’s acceptance of responsibility and his timely notification of his intent to plead guilty, resulting in a total offense level of 23.
Morris’s criminal history was extensive, leading to a total of 22 criminal history points. This placed him in the highest criminal history category, Category VI. Based on these calculations, the PSI recommended an advisory guideline range of 92 to 115 months of imprisonment.
Morris contested the PSI’s calculations, arguing that his prior convictions shouldn’t be used to enhance his base offense level. He also requested a downward variance, citing his difficult childhood, its impact on his adulthood, and his need for substance abuse and mental health treatment.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court rejected Morris’s objections, upholding the PSI’s calculations. While the court considered the possibility of an upward variance, it ultimately sentenced Morris to 115 months in prison. Morris objected to the sentence’s procedural and substantive reasonableness, leading to this appeal.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit addressed two main points: the calculation of Morris’s base offense level and the overall reasonableness of his sentence.
Base Offense Level Calculation
The court reviewed the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo.
Controlled Substance Offense
Morris argued that his conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine should not have been considered a “controlled substance offense.” He claimed that the Georgia law under which he was convicted regulated substances not currently on the federal drug schedule.
The court rejected this argument, citing a previous ruling, *United States v. Dubois (Dubois I)*. This ruling established that even if a drug was regulated by state law at the time of conviction, it could be considered a “controlled substance offense” for sentencing purposes, even if it was no longer regulated by the state at the time of federal sentencing. The court stated that they were bound by this precedent.
Crime of Violence
Morris also argued that his 2019 aggravated assault conviction shouldn’t have been considered a “crime of violence.” He contended that the elements of Georgia aggravated assault didn’t align with the definition of “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines.
The court again disagreed, citing *United States v. Morales-Alonso* and *United States v. Hicks*, which established that Georgia aggravated assault with a deadly weapon contains substantially the same elements as generic aggravated assault. The court found that Morris’s arguments were foreclosed by these precedents.
The court also pointed out that Morris failed to challenge the facts in the PSI about the nature of his aggravated assault conviction. Because he didn’t object to the PSI’s description of the facts, the court considered it an admission that his aggravated assault conviction was based on the fact that he fired his weapon towards a home occupied by three women.
Reasonableness of the Sentence
The court then considered whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Procedural Reasonableness
The court determined that the district court correctly calculated the guideline range, thus finding no procedural errors.
Substantive Reasonableness
Morris argued that his 115-month sentence was excessive. The court disagreed, noting that the district court considered the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The court emphasized that the district court was not required to explicitly address every sentencing factor or explain its reasoning in detail. The court acknowledged that the district court had considered the sentencing factors, the parties’ arguments, and Morris’s criminal history.
The court found that the district court was within its discretion to give significant weight to Morris’s criminal history and characteristics. The 115-month sentence fell within the advisory guideline range and was significantly below the 15-year statutory maximum. Therefore, the court concluded that the sentence was reasonable.
Conclusion
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding Morris’s 115-month sentence. The court found that the district court correctly calculated the sentencing guidelines and that the sentence was reasonable.