United States v. Jennifer Morrison
699 F. App'x 387
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jennifer Morrison pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment.
- She objected to a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) (imported drugs), denial of a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and the assignment of criminal-history points for a prior GHB possession conviction as not being relevant conduct.
- The district court relied on the presentence investigation report (PSR) findings, including that the methamphetamine was imported, because Morrison failed to rebut the PSR.
- The court found Morrison did not prove she was a minor or minimal participant and therefore denied a § 3B1.2 adjustment.
- The court concluded the prior GHB conviction was not sufficiently connected to the instant offense to be treated as part of the same course of conduct, so criminal-history points were proper.
- Morrison appealed contending clear procedural error in applying the Guidelines; the Fifth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and application of the Guidelines de novo where preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement (imported drugs) | Morrison: No evidence meth was imported or she knew it was imported; enhancement violates due process | Govt: PSR adequately supported finding of importation; court may rely on unrebutted PSR facts | Court upheld enhancement; no clear error in relying on PSR and precedent permits enhancement for possession of imported methamphetamine |
| Mitigating-role (§3B1.2) | Morrison: Entitled to minor/minimal-role adjustment | Govt: Morrison failed to prove peripheral role; doing less than others is insufficient | Court affirmed denial; defendant failed to meet burden and findings plausible on record |
| Prior GHB conviction as relevant conduct | Morrison: Prior conviction was part of same course of conduct, so should not get criminal-history points | Govt: Record does not show common factor or sufficient connection to make it same course of conduct | Court affirmed assignment of criminal-history points; no clear error that offenses were substantially connected or part of single series |
| Procedural-reasonableness challenge to Guidelines application | Morrison: District court committed clear procedural error in Guidelines calculation | Govt: Court properly applied standards, relied on PSR, and made plausible factual findings | Court found no significant procedural error; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing reasonableness post-Booker)
- United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (clear-error review of PSR-based factual findings)
- United States v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 2013) (defendant bears burden to rebut PSR; court may rely on unrebutted PSR)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (upholding reliance on PSR where defendant fails to rebut)
- United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2014) (possession of imported methamphetamine supports §2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 666 F.3d 944 (5th Cir. 2012) (possession can "involve" importation for sentencing)
- United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2016) (defendant bears burden to prove mitigating-role adjustment)
- United States v. Silva-De Hoyos, 702 F.3d 843 (5th Cir. 2012) (minor role requires being peripheral to the criminal activity)
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court need not recite each §3B1.2 commentary factor on the record)
- United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 1999) (standards for determining whether separate offenses form same course of conduct)