United States v. Kevin Morris

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Jerome Morris appeals his convictions and
sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant 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 base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846
(2012); and illegal use of a communication facility in
furtherance of a drug transaction, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2012).
Morris’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. 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 no meritorious issues. Before accepting Morris’
guilty plea, the district court conducted a 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 sentence as provided by Rule
2
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 greater than the
sentence set forth in the plea agreement.” United States v.
Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 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 Court of the United States for further
review. If Morris requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Morris.
3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the material
before this court and argument will not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4