US v. Kevin Morris, No. 14-4496 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4496 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN JEROME MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00074-FDW-1) Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric C. Bohnet, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin sentence Jerome imposed Morris following appeals his his guilty convictions plea, pursuant and to a written Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, to conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity (RICO conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (2012); conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine (2012); base, and 21 illegal U.S.C. use §§ 841(a)(1), of a (b)(1)(B), communication and 846 facility in furtherance of a drug transaction, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2012). Morris’ counsel California, 386 has U.S. filed 738 a brief (1967), meritorious issues for appeal. pursuant stating that to Anders there v. are no We affirm in part and dismiss in part. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case, as well as Morris’ pro se supplemental brief, and have found guilty no plea, meritorious the issues. district court Before conducted accepting a Morris’ thorough plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Rule 11 and ensuring that Morris’ plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Turning to Morris’ sentence, we note that Morris and the Government stipulated to a 2 sentence as provided by Rule 11(c)(1)(C). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), (c) (2012), “[w]here a defendant agrees to and receives a specific sentence, he may appeal the sentence only if it was (1) imposed in violation of the law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines, or (3) is sentence set forth in the plea agreement.” Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. greater than the United States v. 2005). Here, the district court imposed the specific sentence to which Morris agreed, the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum for any of the convictions, and the Guidelines range was calculated based upon the parties’ stipulations. We therefore dismiss Morris’ appeal to the extent that he challenges the stipulated sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Morris’ convictions and dismiss the appeal to the extent he challenges his sentence. 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. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Morris. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented will not in aid the the material decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
