United States v. Morin

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-51143
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Justin James Morin,

Defendant—Appellant.

consolidated with
_____________

No. 19-51145
_____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Justin Morin,

Defendant—Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-51143 Document: 00515589895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2020

No. 19-51143
c/w No. 19-51145
2

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:07-CR-45-1
USDC No. 7:19-CR-149-1

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant James Justin Morin appeals the sentences
imposed in 2019 on revocation of supervised release and possession of a
firearm by a felon. Morin had pleaded guilty to two crimes and had been
sentenced to prison and two terms of supervised release.
Morin pleaded guilty to that 2019 firearm possession crime and was
sentenced at the top of the guideline range to 78 months in prison. The court
also revoked supervised release and sentenced him to concurrent prison
terms of 24 months, to run consecutively to the 78-month sentence. The 24-
month sentences were above the advisory range but not above the statutory
maximum sentences available on revocation.
Morin first contends on appeal that the district court failed to give
adequate reasons for the 78-month sentence. The court stated that it had
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and found “the
guideline range in this case to be fair and reasonable.” Nothing more was
required. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). We presume that a
sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. See
United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Morin does not

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-51143 Document: 00515589895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2020

No. 19-51143
c/w No. 19-51145
3
rebut that presumption. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir.
2010).
Morin also contends that the 24-month above-guideline sentences on
revocation were unreasonable, both individually and in combination with the
78-month sentence. He again asserts that the district court gave inadequate
reasons to support its sentence.
Morin is wrong. The district court adequately explained that it had
reviewed the policy statements contained in the Sentencing Guidelines and
the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and that a sentence above the guideline range
was warranted because of, among other things, Morin’s continued criminal
activity, his repeated noncompliance with conditions of supervision, his
history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence. Furthermore, the
district court was allowed to impose any sentence within the appropriate
statutory maximum term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court
also had the discretion to impose consecutive sentences on revocation. 18
U.S.C. § 3584(a); see United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925, 929 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Morin fails to show that the sentences or sentencing procedures were
unreasonable. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-51143 Document: 00515589895 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2020