Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-18-06350/USCOURTS-ca6-18-06350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Lynard Morrow
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0502n.06

Case No. 18-6350

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RONNIE LYNARD MORROW

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

KENTUCKY 

BEFORE: GUY, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. After three prior drug-related violations of supervised release, 

Ronnie Morrow crashed his car twice within a week (first into oncoming traffic, then into a 

building). He failed field sobriety tests after each crash and both times was arrested for driving 

under the influence. The district court revoked his supervised release for a fourth time and imposed

a 24-month prison sentence. Morrow brings procedural and evidentiary challenges to this 

revocation, along with a sentencing challenge to his above-guidelines sentence. We affirm. 

I.

In 2006, Morrow pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Three years later, he pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana in prison, a 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). These offenses carried three-year terms of supervised release. 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 1
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

2

Morrow’s supervised release began in March 2014. It has not gone well. His first 

revocation stemmed from the use of marijuana and the failure to comply with various other terms 

of his supervised release. He received eight months in prison, followed by 28 months of supervised 

release. His second revocation, for the use of a sleeping pill containing a controlled substance,

earned him seven months in prison and 12 months of supervised release. His third revocation, for 

possession of a synthetic drug, led to 13 months of imprisonment and eight months of supervised 

release.

In March 2018, a few months after his latest release from prison, Kentucky police arrested 

Morrow for driving under the influence twice within a week. Morrow’s probation officer initiated

revocation proceedings, citing his arrests for violating Kentucky’s DUI statute. 

A magistrate judge held a hearing. Blood analyses after each arrest revealed no controlled 

substances, and a urine sample collected in between the two arrests also tested negative for drugs. 

Yet David Golz, a representative from the lab that screened Morrow’s urine, testified that the 

screens would not have detected several drugs, including the synthetic drug that Morrow possessed

before his third supervised-release revocation. (The blood tests did not screen for that drug either.) 

Officer Tanner Abbott, who arrested Morrow on March 15, next testified that Morrow’s car had 

been in the left-hand turn lane, but had driven into oncoming traffic instead of turning. Morrow 

appeared intoxicated, failed field sobriety tests, and said that he had no medical issues that would 

explain his disoriented state. Officer Christopher Gates, who arrested Morrow on March 20,

testified that he was dispatched after a 911 call reported that a car had driven into a building. He 

saw Morrow at the scene leaning against the car’s passenger side. Morrow appeared intoxicated 

because of his unsteady feet and slurred speech, again failed field sobriety tests, and again denied 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 2
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

3

having any medical issues that would explain his state. After both arrests, Morrow confidently 

told the officers that he wanted a blood test because it would come back negative. 

The magistrate judge recommended that the district court find by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Morrow violated Kentucky Revised Statute § 189A.010(1)(c), which prohibits 

driving “[w]hile under the influence of any . . . substance or combination of substances which 

impairs one’s driving ability.” The judge proposed a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, which 

was 10 months above the applicable guidelines range. 

Morrow objected. At a hearing before the district judge, he testified for the first time that 

blood-pressure problems (not drugs) caused his erratic driving. Reviewing this new evidence 

along with the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court concluded that Morrow had 

violated Kentucky law and revoked his supervised release. The court imposed a 24-month

sentence. 

II.

Morrow brings three challenges on appeal: a procedural challenge, an evidentiary 

challenge, and a sentencing challenge. 

1. Procedural Challenge. Morrow argues that his supervised-release revocation failed to 

follow procedures required by due process. The Supreme Court has held that “revocation 

proceedings . . . are subject only to ‘minimum requirements of due process,’ which are less 

demanding than the procedural protections that normally accompany criminal trials.” United 

States v. Kokoski, 435 F. App’x 472, 474 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 

471, 489 (1972)). Disclaiming the authority to “write a code of procedure” in the name of due 

process, the Court has nonetheless held that the Due Process Clause requires revocation 

proceedings to follow a list of procedures. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 488–89. Among the minimum

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 3
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

4

required procedures are “written notice of the claimed violations,” “disclosure to the [defendant]” 

of the government’s evidence, and “the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses 

(unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation).” Id. at 

489. These protections have now largely been codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

32.1.

Morrow alleges three violations of these procedural protections. 

First, Morrow argues that the government violated his right to “written notice of the alleged 

violation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(A). He claims that the probation officer’s two notices (one 

for each violation) did not include enough information because they cited a subsection of 

Kentucky’s DUI statute (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.010(5)(a)) that lists the penalties for violations 

rather than the prohibition that he violated. Yet a written notice “need only assure that the 

defendant understands the nature of the alleged violation.” United States v. Sistrunk, 612 F.3d 

988, 992 (8th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Lee, 795 F.3d 682, 686 (7th Cir. 2015). The notices 

in this case did so. They alleged that Morrow had violated Kentucky law by operating a motor 

vehicle under the influence on March 15 and March 20, 2018. And they described Morrow’s 

arrests for violations of Kentucky Revised Statute “§ 189A.010(5A)—a Class B Misdemeanor.”

Each notice included a copy of the respective police citation and referred to the state case. And 

while § 189A.010(5)(a) indeed sets forth penalties, it also connects those penalties back to 

offenses: violations of “subsection (1) of this section.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.010(5). 

Second, Morrow argues that the government failed to disclose two pieces of evidence that 

it used at the revocation hearing: the testimony of Golz (the representative from the lab that tested 

his urine) and an accident report from the March 15 crash that Officer Abbott investigated. His 

argument fails on other grounds, but we pause to mention an uncertainty in the law. Federal Rule 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 4
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

5

of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(B) notes that a person “is entitled to” “disclosure of the evidence 

against the person.” Morrissey likewise identifies a right of “disclosure to the [person] of evidence 

against him.” 408 U.S. at 489. Neither the rule nor the case says when the government must make 

this disclosure. At the revocation hearing? The day before? A month before? Here, Morrow 

obviously received notice of this evidence when the government introduced it at the hearing before

the magistrate judge, which was months before the district court’s decision to revoke his 

supervised release. In between, the court permitted Morrow to supplement the record with 

additional evidence. Under these circumstances, we doubt that the government would have 

violated due process (or Rule 32.1(b)(2)(B)) even if it failed to adequately disclose this evidence 

until the initial hearing. 

Regardless, we see no abuse of discretion in the decision to overrule Morrow’s objections 

about the lack of prehearing disclosures. Cf. United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 514 & n.7 

(8th Cir. 1996). As for Golz’s testimony, Morrow’s counsel apparently did not learn that he would 

testify until the day before the hearing, so counsel filed a motion to exclude the testimony. At the 

hearing, however, counsel conceded that the court should not entirely exclude Golz’s testimony 

because it addressed the urine test results that counsel had received. The magistrate judge denied

Morrow’s motion as moot “without prejudice to [his] right to object to any particular question”

falling outside the scope of the prehearing disclosures. Morrow did not object to any question on 

those grounds. In these circumstances, the district court did not err in allowing all of Golz’s 

testimony. 

As for the accident report, the government did not introduce the report during its direct 

examination of Officer Abbott. Instead, Officer Abbott first referred to the report in response to 

defense counsel’s questions, which seemed to be premised on a statement contained within it. 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 5
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

6

Morrow’s counsel sought to establish that Officer Abbott neither saw Morrow driving the car nor 

asked Morrow if he had been driving. The magistrate judge allowed the government to clarify this 

issue by admitting the report “for the limited purpose of showing why Officer Abbott failed to 

inquire further who was driving”: because another officer asked Morrow that question, and 

Morrow admitted that he had been driving. Given this limited purpose, we need not reach the 

merits of Morrow’s disclosure-related objections to this report because, as explained immediately 

below in response to a related challenge, its admission was harmless.

Third, Morrow argues that the district court’s admission of this report also prohibited him 

from “question[ing] . . . adverse witness[es],” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(B), because the report

contained hearsay from a non-testifying officer and non-testifying eyewitnesses. We do not reach 

the merits of this claim because the report could not have affected the outcome. 

Harmless-error review applies to violations of Rule 32.1. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Yet 

some uncertainty exists over the governing harmless-error standard because the procedural rule 

codifies constitutional guarantees. See United States v. Jackson, 422 F. App’x 408, 410 (6th Cir. 

2011); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, Advisory Committee Notes to 1979 and 2002 Amendments. “[T]he 

distinction between constitutional and nonconstitutional error can be quite important, since the 

standards for testing whether such errors are harmless are different.” United States v. Evans, 216 

F.3d 80, 89 (D.C. Cir. 2000). For nonconstitutional errors, the government must show by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the error did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or 

influence in” the outcome. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946); see also United 

States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 378 (6th Cir. 2015). Constitutional errors, by contrast, require 

a showing “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the” outcome. Kilpatrick, 798 

F.3d at 378 (emphases omitted); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 6
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

7

So which standard applies? Our published precedent says little on this point. At least two 

circuits have held that the Kotteakos standard applies. United States v. Rodriguez, 919 F.3d 629, 

636 (1st Cir. 2019); United States v. Ferguson, 752 F.3d 613, 618 (4th Cir. 2014). But some judges 

have advocated for Chapman in this context. See Ferguson, 752 F.3d at 621–22 (Keenan, J., 

dissenting). Or maybe Kotteakos should apply when a defendant raises an objection under the 

rule, but Chapman should apply when the defendant raises a (similar) objection under the 

Constitution. 

We can reserve the answer to this question. Cf. United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 

1101 (10th Cir. 2016). Any error in admitting the accident report was harmless under either 

standard. At the hearing before the magistrate judge, Morrow disputed that he had been driving 

the car that caused the crash. At the final hearing before the district judge, however, he testified

that he was the driver. Any error in admitting the report was undoubtedly harmless because the 

report shed light on an element that Morrow conceded by the time the district court ruled. See 

Kokoski, 435 F. App’x at 475–76. 

2. Evidentiary Challenge. Morrow next argues that the district court wrongly found that 

his impaired driving resulted from a “substance,” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.010(1)(c), as opposed to 

an innocuous cause like “fatigue or illness.” His argument faces a tough standard of review. The 

district court may “revoke a term of supervised release” if it “finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the defendant violated a condition of [that] release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The 

statute thus “requires a lesser quantum of proof and enables the trier of fact to make a determination 

of guilt that it could not make if the standard were that at trial, i.e., guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” United States v. Thompson, 314 F. App’x 797, 799 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). And we 

review the factual findings underlying a conclusion that a defendant violated the terms of 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 7
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

8

supervised release for clear error. United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089, 1092 (6th Cir. 2009); 

see also United States v. Hughes, 604 F. App’x 448, 453 (6th Cir. 2015). 

Here, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Morrow’s reckless driving arose 

from his use of impairing substances. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 189A.010(1)(c). Morrow twice crashed his 

car: into oncoming traffic on March 15 and into a building on March 20. After both crashes, 

officers believed Morrow to be under the influence of an impairing substance because he failed 

field sobriety tests and denied having medical issues that could explain his condition. After the 

second crash—into a building known for drug activity—Morrow was so unsteady that the officer 

had to stop the sobriety tests for Morrow’s safety. And while Morrow passed drug tests, the tests 

would not have detected the presence of many drugs, including a synthetic drug that Morrow had 

previously possessed. 

Morrow challenges the district court’s finding in several ways. He initially points out that 

the government relied on the officers’ testimony rather than scientific tests. Under Kentucky law, 

however, “a DUI conviction [can] be sustained without evidence procured by use of a device for 

measuring intoxication,” Commonwealth v. Wirth, 936 S.W.2d 78, 81 (Ky. 1996), and thus may 

“stand upon the testimony of the police,” Allen v. Commonwealth, 817 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Ky. Ct. 

App. 1991).

That may be so, Morrow responds, but the district court should not have credited the 

officers’ testimony in this case because of various inconsistencies. Yet “the credibility of 

witnesses is in the province of the factfinder and [we] will not ordinarily review the factfinder’s 

determination of credibility.” United States v. Webster, 426 F. App’x 406, 411 (6th Cir. 2011)

(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir. 1994)).

Morrow’s parsing of the officers’ testimony—criticizing Officer Abbott, for example, because he 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 8
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

9

was not clear over whether he or another officer had asked Morrow if he had been driving the 

car—does not justify a departure from that ordinary rule. 

Morrow lastly challenges the district court’s failure to identify the specific “substance” that

caused his impairment. This argument, too, conflicts with Kentucky law. Even under the beyonda-reasonable-doubt standard, it allows a criminal conviction to rest on police officers’ lay opinions

about a defendant’s impaired state (even if they do not identify the specific substance that caused

the defendant’s impairment). See Allen, 817 S.W.2d at 461. 

3. Sentencing Challenge. Morrow claims that the district court imposed a substantively 

unreasonable 24-month sentence. When reviewing a sentence imposed after the revocation of 

supervised release, we apply the same abuse-of-discretion standard that governs a sentence 

imposed after a conviction. United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2008). For 

sentences outside the guidelines range, we “give due deference to the district court’s decision that 

the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

Morrow’s sentence, which exceeded the top end of his guidelines range by 10 months, was 

not “too long.” United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). The district court 

highlighted several factors justifying the sentence: Morrow had three prior revocations; the court 

had granted a downward variance at his last revocation; his current violations posed serious risks

to the public; and the court could not impose another period of supervised release. These are 

“legitimate grounds for this variance.” Kokoski, 435 F. App’x at 477 (repeat violations); see also 

United States v. Visage, 530 F. App’x 411, 412 (6th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (public safety); United 

States v. Skaggs, 726 F. App’x 411, 416 (6th Cir. 2018) (breach of trust). 

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 9
Case No. 18-6350, United States v. Morrow

10

In response, Morrow argues that the court overemphasized Morrow’s breach of its trust 

and its prior downward departure at the last revocation proceeding. But the Sentencing Guidelines 

do not account for “whether a defendant has violated his supervised release one time or many,” so 

“it may be reasonable for a district court to vary upward when sentencing an offender who commits 

repeated supervised-release violations.” United States v. Wells, 443 F. App’x 997, 998 (6th Cir. 

2011). Regardless, the court cited additional factors, including that Morrow’s impaired driving 

had caused a head-on collision with another car.

We affirm.

 Case: 18-6350 Document: 22-2 Filed: 10/03/2019 Page: 10