[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13026

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN CORY MORRISON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cr-00090-KKM-AEP-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 1 of 15
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13026

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Cory Morrison appeals his total sentence of 

132 months’ imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute 

40 grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 841(b)(1)(B), and the knowing possession of a firearm and ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), and 

924(a)(2). On appeal, Morrison argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable total sentence. After careful 

review, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Morrison and a co-defendant, Jonathan Thuemler, were 

charged with possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more 

of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)

(“Count 1”). In separate counts, Morrison (“Count 2”) and 

Thuemler (“Count 3”) were each also charged with the knowing 

possession of a firearm and ammunition as a felon, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Morrison later pled guilty 

without a written plea agreement. 

A probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSI”), which reported the following facts. 

In February 2023, officers in Pasco County, Florida, stopped 

a pick-up truck that Thuemler was driving. Morrison was a passenger in the front seat. An officer saw a handgun between the

driver’s seat and the center console. Officers searched the truck 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 2 of 15
23-13026 Opinion of the Court 3

and they found, among other things, a digital scale, a straw with 

fentanyl residue, 123 fentanyl pills, and 3.840 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Morrison admitted that he had a gun, 

and officers retrieved a loaded gun from his waistband. Officers 

also searched Morrison’s and Thuemler’s room at a nearby hotel 

where they found 2,009 fentanyl pills, about 19.6 pounds of marijuana, 107 doses of suspected steroids, a pistol case, and two magazines, one of which contained ammunition. 

After his arrest, Morrison admitted that he was a felon and 

that he had an outstanding warrant for a parole violation. He explained that he had recently driven from Oregon to Florida with 

Thuemler and that, while he was in Oregon, he had sold fentanyl 

pills and received about $250,000 worth of fentanyl pills and 30 to 

40 pounds of methamphetamine from his supplier, who was also 

Thuemler’s supplier.

The PSI calculated that Thuemler and Morrison were responsible for 235.751 grams of fentanyl, 3.80 grams of methamphetamine, and 19.6 pounds of marijuana. 

The PSI also reported various personal and family information about Morrison. Growing up, Morrison lived with his 

mother and stepfather, who both sold marijuana and methamphetamine to feed their substance addictions and to financially support 

the family. At eight years old, Morrison began smoking marijuana

daily. When his mother caught him stealing her marijuana to sell 

it at school, she sent him to live with his father, and she stopped 

speaking to Morrison until he was 18 years old. While Morrison 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 3 of 15
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13026

lived with his father, his father abused prescription pain medication 

and severely physically and emotionally abused Morrison. At age 

16, Morrison left his father’s home after his father put a gun to his 

head and threatened to kill him. For around two years, Morrison 

was essentially homeless until his mother asked him to return to 

Oregon. Though Morrison’s mother promised to support him financially and emotionally when he moved back, she failed to do 

so. 

The PSI reported that Morrison had a lengthy history of 

drug use and drug dependency. In addition to his daily use of marijuana at age 8, he began using prescription pain medication at age 

12 and continued using it daily until he was 22 years old; he used 

methamphetamine first around age 18 or 19 and began using it 

daily in his early 20s; and he regularly used other substances, including MDMA, fentanyl, and cocaine. The day after he was arrested, Morrison tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and fentanyl. Though he acknowledged that he

had substance abuse issues, he had never received treatment. He 

also had never received any mental health treatment. 

The PSI also summarized Morrison’s prior criminal history. 

As relevant, it explained that—after convictions at age 18, 19, and 

22—he had been convicted in Oregon state court for unlawful possession of heroin at age 23. At 24, he was convicted in Florida state

court of unlawful possession of methamphetamine and interfering 

with a peace officer. That same year, he was convicted of attempted delivery of a counterfeit substance in Oregon. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 4 of 15
23-13026 Opinion of the Court 5

At 25, Morrison pled guilty in Oregon to charges of attempted arson, burglary, and criminal mischief. The indictment 

underlying those convictions stated that, as to the burglary charge, 

Morrison threatened physical injury to another person. An affidavit that law enforcement prepared during the prosecution of that 

case indicated that Morrison “kicked in the front door of the residence” and “lit a cardboard box on fire and then placed the burning 

box on top of some clothes.” Morrison then left the residence, stating that he would be back with gasoline to finish burning it down. 

In 2017, at the age of 27, Morrison was convicted in Oregon 

state court of criminal mischief. At 28, Morrison was convicted in 

Oregon state court of attempted robbery, attempted assault, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and identity theft. The indictment underlying that conviction alleged that Morrison had used and threatened the use of physical force upon a victim while committing theft 

and that he caused physical injury to the victim by using a dangerous weapon. The criminal affidavit report underlying those 

charges alleged that Morrison struck a victim and caused him to 

lose consciousness. While the victim was unconscious, Morrison

continued kicking him and, after he regained consciousness, Morrison demanded his wallet and debit card PIN and stole his car. The 

victim sustained a concussion and a laceration to his head caused 

by blunt force trauma. Morrison was on parole for these offenses 

at the time of the instant offense, and the PSI noted that his parole 

violation warrant remained outstanding. Based on the facts of his 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 5 of 15
6 Opinion of the Court 23-13026

conviction and his criminal history, the PSI calculated Morrison to 

have a guideline imprisonment range of 110 to 137 months.1

Morrison filed a sentencing memorandum, requesting a 

downward variance based on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 

a total sentence of 84 months’ imprisonment. He argued that his 

personal characteristics, including genetic and environmental factors such as family members who abused substances, parental approval of drug use, poor parental monitoring, and easy availability 

of drugs, all played a role in developing his drug addiction. He explained that he had undergone a psychological assessment and that

he had been diagnosed with severe stimulant (methamphetamine) 

use disorder, severe cannabis use disorder, severe opiate use disorder, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder.

He noted that he had lacked parental support and emotional support, and had been surrounded by peers who used substances, all 

of which increased his drug use and depression. He also asserted 

that he had accepted responsibility for his conduct. In sum, Morrison argued that his long battle with mental illness, his history of 

substance abuse, and his other mitigating characteristics justified 

an 84-month sentence. 

The government requested a 135-month total sentence. It

highlighted that Morrison and his co-defendant had brought “thousands” of fentanyl pills to Florida to sell them and make money. It 

1 The PSI also noted that the maximum term of imprisonment for a violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B) was 480 months, and the maximum term of imprisonment for 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) was 120 months. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 6 of 15
23-13026 Opinion of the Court 7

acknowledged that Morrison had “a personal history of trauma and 

substance abuse,” but noted that he “also ha[d] an established history of violence and harm to others” as evidenced by the facts in 

the PSI. Based on his history, the government argued that Morrison was a threat to public safety who had disregarded the law and 

court orders. It asserted that a 135-month sentence would be reasonable and would reflect the directives in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. 

At sentencing, the parties confirmed that there were no objections to the PSI. Thus, the district court adopted, without objection, the PSI’s factual findings and its guidelines calculations, 

which showed that Morrison’s total offense level was 25, his criminal history category was VI, and his guideline range of imprisonment was 110 to 137 months’ imprisonment. The district court 

noted, however, that the Guidelines were advisory and explained 

that it would give the government and Morrison an opportunity to 

argue what would be an “appropriate sentence.” 

The government opposed Morrison’s request for a downward variance and sought a 135-month total sentence. It contended that aggravating § 3553(a) factors outweighed the mitigating factors Morrison had put forth. It explained that Morrison had 

a pattern of committing crimes, including violent ones, and that

Morrison could have obtained financial gain from distributing the

2,000 fentanyl pills which, in turn, could have led to people’s 

deaths. It also noted that Morrison’s use of a firearm was an aggravating factor. It recognized that Morrison had experienced a lot of 

“strife” in his life and had “mental health concerns and substance 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 7 of 15
8 Opinion of the Court 23-13026

abuse” issues that were mitigating, but it reiterated its contention 

that he posed a risk to the community and argued that denying a 

downward variance would prevent further “criminal escapades.” 

Morrison, in turn, reiterated his request for a downward variance. He noted that the PSI explained that he had been struggling 

with drug addiction for 25 years, starting at the age of 8, and that 

his drug addiction had altered his brain chemistry. He also emphasized that he had cooperated with the government and had taken

responsibility for his crimes. He conceded that he possessed a lot 

of fentanyl, but noted that many of the pills would have been for 

his personal use because of the extent of his addiction. He also 

asked the district court to note the significance of his drug use history, his lack of parental support and mentorship growing up, and 

his difficult upbringing because these factors contributed to his 

criminal behavior. 

The district court first acknowledged that Morrison’s drug 

addiction, including its effect on his brain chemistry, as well as his 

abusive parental behavior and the lack of meaningful guidance,

were mitigating factors. It then acknowledged that Morrison, 

based on the criminal history outlined in the PSI, was not “just a 

drug user”—he had committed some “very violent offenses.”

Morrison conceded that “some” of his crimes were violent, 

but noted that “quite a few” of his convictions were not violent or 

serious. He reiterated his position that, with treatment and behavioral therapy while in prison, he could successfully reenter society 

after a sentence of 84 months. Morrison then gave an allocution, 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 8 of 15
23-13026 Opinion of the Court 9

admitting the seriousness of his offenses and apologizing for what 

he had done. He also stated that he intended to “take advantage” 

of the Bureau of Prison’s rehabilitative programs and work to 

“change his life from this point going forward.” 

The district court stated that it considered the factors in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, though it considered them in every case, it 

did not weigh them the same in every case because every defendant and their circumstances were different. It explained that it 

needed to consider the need for adequate deterrence and the protection of the public and, based on Morrison’s criminal history and 

his past violent offenses, a longer sentence was warranted. It stated 

that, while Morrison’s long-term drug use was “a mitigating factor,” it was not a complete mitigation of his behavior nor did it 

“ameliorate the harm to the community that would have occurred” if he would have distributed the fentanyl or used the firearm in his possession. The court also found that Morrison’s offense 

was “very serious,” in part because fentanyl is “a very deadly drug” 

that is “among the top leading causes of overdoses in the United 

States.” It also determined that Morrison had possessed fentanyl 

and a gun in order to make money—a further aggravating circumstance. In addition, the court found, Morrison had not been deterred from criminal behavior despite his multiple arrests and extensive criminal background. The district court sentenced Morrison to 132 months’ imprisonment and imposed five years of supervised release to follow. Morrison objected to the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence, stating that the court 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 9 of 15
10 Opinion of the Court 23-13026

did not properly apply the § 3553(a) factors. Morrison’s appeal followed. 

As relevant to some of the arguments Morrison makes on 

appeal, Morrison’s co-defendant Thuemler had a guideline imprisonment range was 84 to 105 months. The district court ultimately

varied downward in Thuemler’s case, imposing a 77-month sentence, and explained that it was based on his military service and 

his drug/alcohol dependence. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for 

an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 

1354-55 (11th Cir. 2022). “In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we will not substitute our own judgment for that of the sentencing court and we will affirm a sentence so long as the court's 

decision was ‘in the ballpark of permissible outcomes.’” Id. at 1355

(quoting United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1257 (11th 

Cir. 2015)). A party challenging a sentence as unreasonable bears 

“the burden of establishing the sentence is unreasonable in light of 

the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Gonzalez, 

550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).

III. ANALYSIS 

On appeal, Morrison argues that the district court did not 

properly balance the §3553(a) factors and imposed an unreasonable 

sentence. He admits that the district court acknowledged his significant mitigating circumstances, but argues that the court “did 

not adequately weigh” those factors and “placed too much weight” 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 10 of 15
23-13026 Opinion of the Court 11

on his prior offenses. He contends that his prior crimes were not 

particularly violent and that, instead, they were a product of his 

longstanding need for drug and mental health treatment. He also 

argues that his sentence was unreasonable in comparison to his codefendant, Thuemler. On that point, he maintains that his conduct 

and Thuemler’s conduct were nearly identical and that both sought 

downward variances, but that only Thuemler received a downward variance. Morrison concedes that his criminal history was 

different than Thuemler’s was, but argues that the downward variance motions in the two cases were premised on similar considerations—mental health and substance abuse issues—so the district 

court erred in not appropriately considering sentence disparities 

under § 3553(a)(6). He contends that this disparity, along with his 

arguments in favor of mitigation, show that the district court made 

a clear error of judgment under § 3553, thus warranting resentencing. 

Under § 3553(a), a district court must impose a sentence 

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just 

punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence, and to 

protect the public from future crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). In addition, the court must consider, among other factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and 

characteristics of the defendant, and the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants. Id. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 11 of 15
12 Opinion of the Court 23-13026

“[W]e have identified three ways in which a district court 

can abuse its discretion [and] impos[e] a substantively unreasonable sentence: (1) failing to properly consider a relevant sentencing 

factor that was due significant weight, (2) giving significant weight 

to a factor that was not relevant, or (3) committing a clear error of 

judgment by weighing the sentencing factors unreasonably.” Butler, 39 F.4th at 1356; see also United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 

(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). In assessing the reasonableness of a sentence, we “ordinarily expect a sentence within the Guidelines range 

to be reasonable.” Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. For similar reasons, 

a sentence imposed “well below” the statutory maximum also can

indicate reasonableness. Id.

Though the district court must consider all relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors, “the weight given to each factor is committed to 

the sound discretion of the district court,” and it may attach great 

weight to one factor over the others. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. A 

court’s “failure to discuss . . . ‘mitigating’ evidence” does not indicate that the court “erroneously ‘ignored’ or failed to consider th[e]

evidence in determining [the defendant’s] sentence.” United States 

v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007). “Rather, a district 

court’s acknowledgment that it has considered the §3553(a) factors 

and the parties’ arguments is sufficient.” Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355

(citing United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009)). 

Though the district court is also required “to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records 

who have been found guilty of similar conduct,” a sentencing 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 12 of 15
23-13026 Opinion of the Court 13

disparity among co-defendants is usually not grounds for appellate 

relief. United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 1237 (11th Cir. 2015); 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Moreover, “[a] well-founded claim of [unwarranted] disparity . . . assumes that apples are being compared to 

apples.” United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 

2009) (quoting United States v. Mateo-Espejo, 426 F.3d 508, 514 (1st 

Cir. 2005)). We have held that evaluating alleged sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants requires “more than 

the crime of conviction and the total length of the sentences.” 

United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018, 1048 (11th Cir. 2015). “The 

underlying facts of the crime and all of the individual characteristics

are relevant.” Id. (emphasis added).

Applying these principles here, Morrison has not shown that 

the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. 

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. The district court considered the parties’ arguments and the applicable § 3553(a) factors. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a); Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. It also identified, and stated that 

it had considered, Morrison’s mitigating factors—including his history of drug use, his parents’ abusive behavior, and the lack of 

meaningful parental guidance—as well as his criminal history, the 

need for adequate deterrence, the need to protect the public, the 

need to promote respect for the law, the need for just punishment, 

and the seriousness of his offenses. As the district court recognized, 

Morrison’s mitigating evidence was compelling, but so was the evidence about his prior crimes. In other words, all of the factors the 

district court considered were relevant, and we cannot say that the 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 13 of 15
14 Opinion of the Court 23-13026

district court acted unreasonably by considering them and weighing them. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

To the extent that Morrison asserts that the court improperly considered his criminal history by mischaracterizing his past 

offenses as violent, we cannot say the district court erred. The PSI 

shows that Morrison threatened to use, and in some cases did use,

physical force against another person on multiple occasions. Because there was support in the record for the district court’s statements, we do not consider the comments erroneous, nor do they 

reflect that the court relied on an irrelevant factor. To the extent 

the district court heavily relied on Morrison’s criminal history, doing so was not error here because a district court may attach greater

weight to one factor over others. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. 

As to Morrison’s argument that the district court failed to 

avoid a sentencing disparity between him and Thuemler, Morrison 

has not shown that he and Thuemler were similarly situated. The 

district court did not think so, and there were sufficient facts in the 

record to support that conclusion. Morrison’s criminal history category was higher than Thuemler’s, causing Morrison to have a 

higher Guidelines range. The district court also cited Thuemler’s 

military service—a characteristic that Morrison did not have—as 

one of the reasons for it varying downward in sentencing

Thuemler. Those distinguishing facts were not impermissible or 

irrelevant in the sentencing process. See, e.g., Kimbrough v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 85, 110 (2007) (noting, with approval, the district 

court’s consideration of military service as a mitigating sentencing 

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 14 of 15
23-13026 Opinion of the Court 15

factor). Because there were substantive differences between Morrison and Theumler, Morrison has not demonstrated a wellfounded claim of disparity. See Docampo, 573 F.3d at 1101-02; Azmat, 805 F.3d at 1048.

Furthermore, Morrison’s total sentence of 132 months’ imprisonment is within the guideline range and well below the statutory maximum of 480 months. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. 

These are further indicators that the district court’s sentence was 

not unreasonable.

IV. CONCLUSION

Our review of the substantive reasonableness of a sentence 

is deferential, and we ask only whether the sentence given was “in 

the ballpark of permissible outcomes.” Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. 

Based on the totality of the circumstances, Morrison has not shown 

that the district court abused its discretion and imposed an unreasonable sentence. We, therefore, affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13026 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 08/30/2024 Page: 15 of 15