US v. Anthony Morris, No. 15-4038 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4038 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY AKRAH MORRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13cr-00445-PWG-1) Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015 Before GREGORY and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas M. Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Akrah Morris was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of robbery, and two counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c), 1951 (2012). The district court sentenced him to a total of 505 months’ imprisonment on the charges, which included a mandatory, consecutive sentence of 32 years’ imprisonment for the two firearm charges. Morris argues that the district court erred On appeal, in admitting portions of coconspirator testimony and that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. I. “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will only overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational.” Cir. 2012) conclude United States v. Cloud, 680 F.3d 396, 401 (4th (internal that the quotation district marks court omitted). abused its Even if we discretion in admitting evidence, however, we review the admission under the harmless error standard. Id. “In order to find a district court’s error harmless, we need only be able to say with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.” marks and alterations omitted). 2 Id. (internal quotation Morris argues that the district court erred in admitting the testimony of a coconspirator that the coconspirator participated in approximately three dozen robberies. We reject Morris’ contentions that the testimony was irrelevant or that its prejudicial value. effect substantially Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. outweighed its probative We conclude that the evidence was relevant as it assisted the jury in assessing the witness’ credibility, Fed. R. Evid. 607, and that the prejudicial effect Morris alleges is purely speculative and not supported by the record. Morris also challenges the district court’s admission of coconspirator testimony that a jacket appearing in still images appeared to be the same jacket as the one worn by Morris on May 31, 2012. Even if we were to conclude that the district court abused its discretion reject Morris’ claim in admitting because, in this view evidence, of the we would substantial evidence against Morris, we are confident that the testimony had at most a verdict. negligible effect on the Thus, error in admitting any jury’s deliberations the testimony and was harmless. II. Morris also challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. “deferential procedural and substantive We review the sentence under a abuse-of-discretion 3 standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In making its Sentencing Guidelines calculations, the district court may consider facts presented at the sentencing hearing that are established by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014). Morris argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to state whether the Government established Morris’ participation in unindicted robberies by a preponderance of the evidence and further erred by failing to explain what role the unindicted robberies determination. had in We disagree. the court’s sentencing The district court stated that, based on the Government’s evidence, there was “no question” that Morris participated in the unindicted robberies. district court did not use the phrase Though the “preponderance of the evidence,” it is clear the Government sufficiently established these facts. The court also stated that the evidence of the unindicted robberies Guidelines range, bottom that of explanation robberies of may determination justified but was § 924(c) sentences. It sentence have sentence nonetheless range. its a is imposed apparent that any in the the impact played negated at by the top of the a sentence at the from role the the court’s of the court’s unindicted sentencing mandatory Next, Morris claims that the district court failed to give careful consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 4 factors, other than the nature of the offense. This argument is belied by the record, and is accordingly rejected. Having concluded that Morris’ sentence is procedurally reasonable, we next review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. the totality of the circumstances.” Because Morris’ sentence “is within . . . a properly calculated Guidelines range[, it] is presumptively reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.) (internal citation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Morris fails to rebut this presumption. his sentence is substantively unreasonable Morris’ claim that essentially argues that he should have received no punishment for the conspiracy and robbery § 924(c) counts counts were § 3553(a) factors. explaining its because the mandatory sufficient to sentences satisfy We reject this proposition. sentence, the court adequately the 18 on the U.S.C. In thoroughly considered the totality of the circumstances and imposed a reasonable sentence. Accordingly, we reject Morris’ judgment of the district court. arguments and affirm the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 5 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
