US v. Lavelton Morris, No. 13-4800 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4800 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAVELTON MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00102-CCE-2) Submitted: May 13, 2014 Decided: May 20, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lavelton Morris appeals the 156-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and 28 grams or more of cocaine base, accordance in with violation Anders v. of 21 U.S.C. California, § 386 846 (2012). U.S. 738 In (1967), Morris counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the calculation of Morris Guidelines range and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. he echoes and Morris has filed supplemental briefs in which supplements counsel s arguments. Finding no error, we affirm. We review Morris sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse-of-discretion standard. U.S. 38, 51 procedural (2007). error[s], We must Gall v. United States, 552 first including review improperly for significant calculating[] the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, . find a sentence procedurally substantive reasonableness. to adequately Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. explain the chosen sentence. . . or Only if we reasonable failing may we consider its United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, Morris first contends that the district court should not have converted the 2 roughly $6000 found in his possession on the night of his arrest to its cocaine equivalent when calculating his Guidelines range. Assuming, without deciding, that there was plain error, such error did not affect Morris substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (discussing standard of review). Because the actual narcotics Morris and his co-conspirator possessed at the time of their apprehension was more than adequate to support Morris base offense level, any error in converting the seized cash to its cocaine equivalency caused no prejudice. Moreover, there is no merit to Morris contention that the district court improperly applied enhancements under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1), (b)(12) (2012). Morris objected to neither enhancement, and their application was well supported by the facts recounted in Morris uncontested presentence report. See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 707 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Nelson, 6 F.3d 1049, 1056 (4th Cir. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Bailey v. United States, 516 adequately arguments U.S. 137 explained when (1995). its sentencing Because reasoning Morris at the and the district considered low end court Morris of his Guidelines range, we conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. 3 We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. We deny Morris motions to reconsider and to substitute counsel. This court requires that counsel inform Morris, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme review. If Morris Court requests counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. of such this the that a United a petition petition court for States be would leave for to further filed, be but frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Morris. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
