United States v. Morris ( 2023 )

Case: 21-30676 Document: 00516659666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-30676
Summary Calendar FILED
February 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Quintarence Morris,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:20-CR-254-1
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Quintarence Morris appeals his within-guidelines 120-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for distribution of
heroin. He asserts that the district court erred in applying the two-level
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
.
Case: 21-30676 Document: 00516659666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2023
No. 21-30676
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for
the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance and erred
in applying the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for
possessing a dangerous weapon.
The “district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) is a factual finding
reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 744 (5th Cir.
2015). Morris contends that the premises enhancement should not have
applied because the Government failed to show that the frequency of the drug
sales outweighed the primary use of his home as a residence. He also asks
this court to adopt the “totality of the circumstances” test set forth in United
States v. Murphy, 901 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2018). We have held that the use
of a premises as a residence does not preclude application of the premises
enhancement where the use of the residence for the purpose of drug
distribution is one of the primary uses of the residence. United States v.
Galicia, 983 F.3d 842, 844 (5th Cir. 2020). The record reflects that one of
the primary uses of Morris’s home was for drug distribution. Accordingly,
the district court did not clearly err in applying the premises enhancement.
See id. at 845.
The district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(1) is also a factual
finding reviewed for clear error. See United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 53
(5th Cir. 2014). The Government showed that a firearm was in the same
location as drugs and drug paraphernalia in Morris’s home, and Morris fails
to show that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the
offense. See King, 773 F.3d at 53. Thus, the district court’s application of
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) was not clearly erroneous. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2