United States v. Morrison

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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