United States v. Cedric Morris, 836 F.3d 868

In 2015 Cedric Morris pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing heroin under a written plea agreement; two other counts were dismissed.
The agreement had the government recommend attribution of 400–700 grams of heroin (base offense level 26), an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and to recommend a sentence within the Guidelines range as calculated by the district court.
A warrant execution at Morris’s shared residence uncovered a Smith & Wesson .32 handgun located near Morris’s bedroom, a small amount of heroin, and drug-packaging materials; Morris was arrested later.
The PSR adopted the parties’ agreed offense level adjustments but added two enhancements not in the plea: a two-level dangerous-weapon enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(1)) and a leadership-role enhancement; the judge rejected the leadership enhancement but applied the weapon enhancement.
With the weapon enhancement the Guidelines range was 70–87 months (criminal-history category III); the government recommended a sentence at the higher end of that range and the judge imposed 87 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the government breach the plea agreement by supporting an unlisted enhancement and recommending a high-end Guidelines sentence?	Morris: The government breached by supporting a weapon enhancement not in the plea and by recommending a sentence within the higher 70–87 range rather than the 57–71 range that would have resulted without the enhancement.	Government: The plea reserved the parties’ right to make recommendations on matters not addressed; it made the three explicit promises in the agreement and recommended a sentence within the district court–calculated Guidelines range.	No breach. The agreement permitted recommendations on issues not specifically addressed; the government recommended within the court–calculated Guidelines range.
Was the two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon warranted?	Morris: The government failed to prove he possessed the handgun found in the residence.	Government: The gun was found adjacent to Morris’s bedroom and next to heroin and packaging materials, supporting constructive possession and connection to the drug offense.	Enhancement affirmed. The record supports constructive possession and connection to drug activity; defendant did not prove it was clearly improbable the weapon was connected.

United States v. Orlando, 823 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2016) (plain-error review framework applied to unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Brown, 779 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2015) (plea-agreement interpretation and resolving ambiguities against the government)
United States v. Navarro, 817 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing adjustments to Guidelines from variances; government breached plea when it sought an upward variance)
United States v. Strode, 552 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for guideline-enhancement determinations)
United States v. Orozco, 576 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2009) (government must prove possession of a weapon by a preponderance of the evidence)
United States v. Bothun, 424 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2005) (guns found in a defendant’s home near drug paraphernalia can establish constructive possession and connection)
United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2002) (possession inferred from weapons’ location at defendant’s residence and business)
United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2000) (mere proximity or access to firearms in drug houses insufficient for constructive possession)

Affirmed.