United States v. Core Morris , 376 F. App'x 461 ( 2010 )

Case: 09-30304 Document: 00511096700 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 30, 2010
No. 09-30304 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CORE L. MORRIS, also known as Pretty Boy,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:06-CR-50090-1
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Core L. Morris appeals his sentence imposed after our previous remand for
re-sentencing following his conviction for mail fraud, counterfeiting checks, and
social security number fraud. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
1. Morris challenges the application of a sentence enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(i) (2008) for using a “means of identification” to
obtain “any other means of identification.” Morris used his mother’s social
security number to obtain a Louisiana driver’s license in his own name,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 09-30304 Document: 00511096700 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2010
No. 09-30304
but he argues that the Government failed to prove that he lacked consent
to use the number. Because Morris did not raise this argument in the
district court, it is reviewed for plain error only. See United States v.
Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). In this case, we
cannot say it was plain error for the district court to find that Morris’s use
of his mother’s social security number to obtain a driver’s license was an
unauthorized use of the social security number, regardless of whether or
not Morris had permission from his mother to use the number for that
unlawful purpose. Morris also argues that the sentence enhancement is
inapplicable because the driver’s license that he obtained was in his own
name. This argument fails because the driver’s license number was still
tied inextricably to Morris’s mother’s social security number. See United
States v. Williams, 355 F.3d 893, 900 (6th Cir. 2003) (enhancement
applied when defendants used real social security numbers to apply for
and obtain home mortgage loans in their own names); see also United
States v. Oats, 427 F.3d 1086, 1089–90 (8th Cir. 2005); § 2B1.1 cmt.
(n.9(C)).
2. Morris also argues that the district court violated due process and
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by increasing his criminal
history score and imposing a greater sentence after remand because of an
intervening conviction obtained for attempting to smuggle drugs into the
prison while his first appeal was pending. The district court expressly
explained that the sentence was based on Morris’s intervening conviction,
which is an objective and permissible factor justifying an increased
sentence after a remand. See Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559,
571–72, 104 S. Ct. 3217, 3224–25 (1984); United States v. Schmeltzer, 20
F.3d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1994). Morris fails to show that the district court
procedurally erred or imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
2
Case: 09-30304 Document: 00511096700 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2010
No. 09-30304
AFFIRMED.
3