UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD MORRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-4027
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD MORRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (5:01-cr-00276-FA-2; 5:06-cr-00092-FA-l)
Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: June 18, 2009
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy, Anne
Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joshua B.
Royster, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Donald Morrison was convicted
of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (2006); fifteen counts of making false statements
and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 2
(2006); seven counts of mail fraud and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 2 (2006); using, transferring,
acquiring, and possessing food stamps in an unauthorized manner
and aiding and abetting, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)
(2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and conversion of food stamps, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 2 (2006). Morrison was
conditionally released pending his sentencing hearing. Before
sentencing, Morrison fled the jurisdiction, and thus failed to
appear for his scheduled sentencing hearing on April 25, 2003.
Morrison was not located and arrested until December 2005. He
was indicted for failure to appear on April 5, 2006, and on
March 27, 2007, a jury found Morrison guilty of knowingly
failing to appear at his April 25, 2003 sentencing.
Morrison’s fraud and failure to appear convictions
were consolidated for sentencing. The district court sentenced
Morrison to twenty-one months on each of the twenty-five counts
of fraud, to be served concurrently and six months to be served
consecutively for failing to appear. Morrison was ordered to
3
pay a $50,000 fine, $26,988 in restitution, and a $2600 special
assessment. He timely appealed, and proceeds pro se.
We have reviewed the following claims raised by
Morrison in his informal brief: (1) various claims of
prosecutorial misconduct, including the allegation that Morrison
was denied discovery in his 2002 trial that was later provided
in his 2006 failure to appear trial; (2) that Morrison was
precluded from introducing a necessity defense at his failure to
appear trial and that the indictment for that offense was
inaccurate; (3) that false allegations were made about food
stamp reporting requirements and additional claims of
prosecutorial misconduct; (4) that Morrison faced false mail
fraud charges; and (5) that the prosecutor made improper
references to a “slush fund” of food stamps and to Title 7,
Chapter 51 of the U.S. Code. Upon careful review, we conclude
that none of these claims are meritorious. We further note that
Morrison cannot contest his civil forfeiture proceedings in this
criminal appeal.
Morrison’s challenges to his sentence for the most
part amount to a denial of his guilt. His complaint that he was
not afforded a restitution hearing is without merit. The
district court, at sentencing, conducted a lengthy inquiry into
the amount of loss and the appropriate amount of restitution.
The court accepted documentary evidence from Morrison and a
4
proffer of what his witnesses would have said. The defense
persuaded the court to reduce the amount of loss and
restitution to a fraction of that proposed in the presentence
report, equal to the amount admitted by Morrison. After that
reduction, Morrison and his standby counsel made no further
objections. We conclude that the district court’s restitution
award is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. See
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm Morrison’s convictions and
sentence. We grant Morrison’s motion to file a supplemental pro
se brief and have considered that brief in deciding this appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5