United States v. Carl Morris
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 69
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Morris pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine for a December 5, 2012 delivery; PSR also attributed two additional deliveries (Dec. 3 short delivery and Dec. 19 delivery of a counterfeit substance) as relevant conduct.
- The PSR treated the counterfeit substance as equivalent to actual crack under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1 Application Note 4, resulting in total attributed crack weight of ~55.7 grams and a guidelines range of 57–71 months.
- Morris argued at sentencing that (1) the informant (at government direction) inflated the final order (sentencing entrapment), (2) much of the attributed drug weight was a counterfeit substance improperly inflating his range, and (3) the 18:1 crack-to-powder ratio is unjustified and the court should apply a 1:1 ratio. He requested an 18-month sentence.
- The district court acknowledged Morris’s personal history and sentenced him below the guideline range to 48 months, but did not expressly address his principal mitigation arguments on the record.
- On appeal Morris argued the court committed procedural error by failing to address those principal mitigation arguments; the government conceded the court had not addressed them but urged no waiver occurred and that the below-guidelines sentence may be harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Morris's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morris waived appellate review of the district court's failure to address principal mitigation arguments | No waiver; counsel preserved the arguments at sentencing | Court’s post‑sentence "Anything further?" and counsel’s silence amounted to waiver under Garcia‑Segura | No waiver — general post‑sentence inquiry did not trigger the specific Garcia‑Segura preservation procedure; issue preserved for appeal |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by not addressing Morris’s principal mitigation arguments (informant direction, counterfeit weight, crack/powder ratio) | Court failed to address significant mitigating arguments that could materially affect sentence; remand required | District court gave a below‑guidelines sentence, but record doesn’t show whether court credited or rejected the mitigation arguments | Procedural error: court did not adequately address principal arguments; vacated and remanded for resentencing so the district court can explain treatment of those arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of appellate review for sentencing reasonableness and requirement to check for significant procedural error)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may disagree with and vary from crack/powder Guidelines ratio)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009) (district courts may categorically reject crack‑cocaine Guidelines based on policy disagreement)
- Cunningham v. Gates, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (principal mitigation arguments must be addressed unless too weak to merit discussion)
- United States v. Garcia‑Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir.) (procedural guidance on asking counsel whether main mitigation arguments were addressed to avoid waiver)
- United States v. Johnson, 643 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2011) (rejecting that crack/powder ratio arguments are too weak to merit discussion)
- United States v. Olson, 450 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2006) (harmless‑error standard for sentencing errors)