United States v. Morrison ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4701
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LONNIE EDWARD MORRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-97)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Edwin C.
Walker, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Christine Blaise Hamilton,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Edward Morrison appeals his sentence imposed upon
a violation of his term of supervised release from his previous
conviction on drug-related charges. Morrison ultimately was
sentenced to 140 months’ imprisonment on the underlying conviction,
after the sentence was reduced by the district court based upon
Morrison’s substantial assistance. He now challenges the district
court’s imposition of a sentence of thirty months’ imprisonment for
his admitted violations of the terms of his supervised release.
According to the undisputed facts, Morrison’s term of
supervised release began in early September 2004, and he was
ordered to participate in a drug-treatment program. He tested
positive for cocaine use at the end of September 2004 and was
required to spend five days in jail. In December 2004, following
two additional positive urine screens, the court ordered Morrison
to serve five weekends in jail. On May 24, 2005, the probation
officer filed an amended motion to revoke Morrison’s supervised
release, alleging that Morrison had failed to: (1) notify her of
a change of address; (2) attend substance-abuse treatment; (3)
provide three urine screens; (4) report to the probation officer;
and (5) find employment.
At his hearing, Morrison admitted that he committed the
alleged violations, and he requested treatment for his cocaine
problem. The district court stated that, while it had considered
- 2 -
the policy statement on revocation contained in Chapter Seven of
the sentencing guidelines, it determined that Morrison’s sentence
should be thirty months’ imprisonment to insure that Morrison could
receive the intensive substance abuse treatment available to him
while incarcerated, which would require a minimum of twenty-four
months to complete. On appeal, Morrison contends that the sentence
imposed by the district court was unreasonable, given the
applicable sentencing guidelines policy statement.
This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court
as a consequence of a supervised release violation for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.
1995). The sentencing ranges provided by U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s., are purely advisory and do not
bind the sentencing court. Davis, 53 F.3d at 672.
We find, given that the district court considered the
guidelines prior to imposing sentence and imposed the thirty-month
sentence so Morrison could receive the intensive substance abuse
treatment he clearly needed and requested, the district court’s
sentence does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly,
we affirm Morrison’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -