United States v. Morris

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50047
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Timothy John Morris,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-143-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Timothy John Morris challenges his 150-month sentence for
possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of actual
methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). According to
Morris, the district court erred when it held him accountable for 340.2 grams

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-50047 Document: 00515584535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2020

No. 20-50047
2
of methamphetamine actual based on statements that he made to
investigators after his arrest.
In determining the quantity of methamphetamine involved in the
offense, the district court considered all of Morris’s post-Miranda
1

statements and conservatively estimated an amount lower than that to which
Morris originally admitted. See United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d 757, 761
(5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1282 (2020); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 & cmt.
(n.5). Because the district court considered Morris’s admissions as a whole,
his later statements do not rebut their own reliability for approximating his
relevant conduct. Nor do the amounts seized at the time of Morris’s arrest
rebut his own estimates of his methamphetamine trade where Morris
adduced no evidence that those amounts reflected the scale of his trade in
methamphetamine better than his admissions. See Barfield, 941 F.3d at 763-
64; § 2D1.1, cmt. (n.5); see also United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 267 (5th
Cir. 2006).
Having adduced no evidence to rebut his admissions, Morris fails to
show that the district court clearly erred in relying on the quantity derived
from those admissions. See Barfield, 941 F.3d at 761, 763-64; see also United
States v. Moton, 951 F.3d 639, 645 & n.29 (5th Cir. 2020); Valdez, 453 F.3d at
267. Because the quantity of methamphetamine actual that the district court
attributed to Morris is plausible in light of the record as a whole, the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Case: 20-50047 Document: 00515584535 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2020