United States v. Andrew Damarr Morris, 71 F.4th 475

Background

Defendant Andrew Morris was serving supervised release after a 2008 conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and a § 924(c) firearm count.
In Jan. 2021 Morris committed multiple supervised-release violations (threatened a victim with a pneumatic pistol, led police on a high-speed chase, discarded drugs/firearm, and tested positive for methamphetamine), and the district court found 12 violations.
At first revocation the Guidelines were 51–63 months (Grade A conduct); the court imposed a below-Guidelines 48‑month sentence (24 months consecutive on each count, with time served on one count).
On appeal the sentence was vacated and remanded because Borden v. United States changed the grading of the resisting-and-obstructing offense, lowering Morris’s Guidelines range on remand to 21–27 months.
On remand the district court resentenced Morris to the same aggregate 48‑month term by imposing consecutive 24‑month terms; defense objected to procedural and substantive reasonableness.
The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded again, holding the district court failed to adequately explain its decision—particularly the imposition of consecutive sentences and increasing one count from time served to 24 months—and that the 21‑month upward variance was substantively unreasonable (with a separate concurrence agreeing on procedural error but not on substance).

Issues

Issue	Morris's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Standard of review for unpreserved procedural objections	District court did not ask the Bostic question, so review should be for abuse of discretion	Objection was vague; apply plain‑error review	Abuse‑of‑discretion review applies because the court did not ask the Bostic question
Consideration of impermissible factors	Court relied impermissibly on prior criminal history and violation conduct already reflected in Guidelines	Prior history and seriousness of breach of trust are proper considerations	Court may consider prior criminal history and may sanction breach of trust/seriousness of violation conduct; these were permissible factors
Adequacy of explanation for imposing consecutive sentences	Court failed to explain why consecutive sentences were necessary or how §3553(a) factors supported them; increased Count One from time served to 24 months without explanation	Court sought to reach same result as original sentencing and relied on discretion to impose consecutive terms	Vacated: district court failed to adequately explain consecutive sentences or tie them to §3553(a) factors; increasing Count One to 24 months without explanation was reversible error
Substantive reasonableness of 48‑month sentence (21‑month upward variance)	The variance is excessive; court placed undue weight on a few factors and ignored others; no compelling justification for large upward variance	Sentence is reasonable given defendant’s extensive criminal history and repeated supervised‑release violations; district court reasonably reimposed prior sanction	Vacated: the variance was substantively unreasonable because the court did not adequately weigh or explain §3553(a) factors and failed to show sufficiently compelling justification for the degree of variance (concurrence disagreed on substance)

Key Cases Cited

Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (redefined the scope of what counts as a violent felony, affecting classification of supervised‑release violations)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes procedural and substantive reasonableness review and requirement to adequately explain sentence)
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness review for sentences after supervised‑release revocation)
United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (district courts may consider breach of trust and seriousness of violation conduct; must generally explain rationale for consecutive sentences)
United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court must indicate rationale for imposing consecutive sentences to permit meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Perez‑Rodriguez, 960 F.3d 748 (6th Cir. 2020) (greater variances from the Guidelines require more compelling justification and explanation)
United States v. Kitchen, [citation="428 F. App'x 593"] (6th Cir. 2011) (consecutive sentence may be supported by earlier §3553(a) discussion, but the court must still connect the rationale on the record)