United States v. Morris, 573 F. App'x 712

Morris coordinated a tax-fraud scheme using fabricated Form 1099-OID to generate unwarranted tax refunds totaling about $2.3 million.
Armstrong, a co-defendant who represented himself, engaged in similar conduct and trial included a self-represented defense.
Morris was convicted on 28 counts including mail fraud, false claims against the United States, and conspiracy; Armstrong was convicted on all counts.
The district court denied severance and Morris challenged the convictions and sentence on multiple grounds, including evidentiary and prosecutorial-issue concerns.
The district court imposed a substantial sentence after varying downward from the advisory guidelines, and Morris appealed the convictions and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Severance denial—abuse of discretion	Morris argues Armstrong’s conduct prejudiced him	Armstrong’s self-representation caused prejudice	No abuse; limited prejudice from Armstrong’s conduct did not prejudice Morris.
Chafin testimony—expert vs lay, evidence rules	Chafin testified as expert, undisclosed	testimony admissible under Rule 701/704 as lay; no plain error	No abuse or plain error; testimony properly limited and harmless.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Government inflamed passions by tying tax dollars to jurors’ interests	Context shows remarks were within bounds and not outcome-determinative	No plain error; remarks did not affect substantial rights or trial fairness.
Sentencing reasonableness and guideline calculations	Challenges to loss, sophisticated means, and obstruction enhancements	Arguments lack jurisdiction or merit; district court properly applied enhancements	Reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); procedural and substantive guidelines applied appropriately.

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (presumption in conspiracy trials favors joint trials; limiting instructions can cure prejudice)
McConnell v. United States, 749 F.2d 1441 (10th Cir. 1984) (McConnell factors for severance abuse of discretion)
United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663 (10th Cir. 1992) (severance considerations in co-defendant trials)
United States v. Fleming, 667 F.3d 1098 (10th Cir. 2011) (necessity of limiting instructions to cure prejudice)
Banks v. United States, 262 F. App’x 900 (10th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for challenged lay/ expert testimony)
Banks, 262 F. App’x 900 (10th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for evidence rulings in Banks decision)
Cross v. United States, 928 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir. 1991) (comparison for pro se codefendant prejudice)
Tracy v. United States, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir. 1993) (prejudice analysis with pro se codefendant)
Angel-Guzman v. United States, 506 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 2007) (departure/review standards on sentencing)
Chavez-Diaz v. United States, 444 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2006) (substantive reasonableness review under 3553(a))
Fonseca v. United States, 473 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2007) (no appellate jurisdiction to review denial of downward departure absent statutory constraint)
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (reasonableness presumption for within-Guidelines sentences)