Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 15-4038
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13cr-00445-PWG-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
November 5, 2015
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Akrah Morris was convicted by a jury of conspiracy
to commit robbery, two counts of robbery, and two counts of
brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 924(c), 1951 (2012).
The district
argues
that
the
district
court
erred
On appeal,
in
admitting
We affirm.
I.
2012)
conclude
(internal
that
the
quotation
district
marks
court
omitted).
abused
its
Even
if
we
discretion
in
Id.
testimony
of
coconspirator
that
the
coconspirator
We reject
prejudicial
value.
effect
substantially
outweighed
its
probative
abused
its
discretion
reject
Morris
claim
in
admitting
because,
in
this
view
evidence,
of
the
we
would
substantial
most a
verdict.
negligible
effect
on
the
Thus,
error
in
admitting
any
jurys
deliberations
the
testimony
and
was
harmless.
II.
Morris
also
challenges
the
procedural
and
substantive
abuse-of-discretion
3
standard.
Gall
v.
United
States,
552
U.S.
38,
41
(2007).
In
making
its
Sentencing
to
state
whether
the
Government
established
Morris
robberies
determination.
had
in
We disagree.
the
courts
sentencing
court
did
not
use
the
phrase
Though the
preponderance
of
the
unindicted
robberies
Guidelines
range,
bottom
that
of
explanation
robberies
of
may
determination
justified
but
was
924(c) sentences.
It
sentence
have
sentence
nonetheless
range.
its
is
apparent
that
any
in
the
the
impact
played
negated
imposed
by
at
the
top
of
the
sentence
at
the
from
role
the
the
courts
of
the
courts
unindicted
sentencing
mandatory
This argument is
concluded
that
Morris
sentence
is
procedurally
into
account
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
Such
presumption
can
only
be
rebutted
by
756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.) (internal citation omitted), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
Morris fails to rebut this presumption.
his sentence
is
substantively
unreasonable
argues
robbery
924(c)
counts
counts
were
3553(a) factors.
explaining
its
because
the
mandatory
sufficient
to
sentences
satisfy
sentence,
the
court
adequately
the
18
on
the
U.S.C.
In thoroughly
considered
the
we
reject
Morris
arguments
and
affirm
the
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED