US v. Daniel Morris, No. 09-5065 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5065 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DANIEL DEVON MORRIS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00456-TDS-1) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Devon Morris pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of knowingly attempting to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity, 2010). in The violation district of 21 court U.S.C.A. imposed § the 2422(b) (West statutory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Supp. mandatory Counsel for Morris filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court fashioned a reasonable sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Appellate review of a district court s imposition of a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly [g]uidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. outside the Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). 2 United States v. The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing sentencing Morris, guidelines as appropriately advisory, properly treating calculating the and considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. 63 months but sentence, his because range Morris s guidelines range was 51 to of the statutory became 120 months. mandatory Morris s minimum 120-month sentence, which is the statutory sentence the district court was required to impose, may be presumed reasonable by this court. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Morris, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Morris Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. was served on in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof Morris. We deny counsel. 3 Morris s motion to withdraw We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
