UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DONALD MORRISON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 08-4027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DONALD MORRISON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. David A. Faber, Senior 

District Judge. (5:01-cr-00276-FA-2; 5:06-cr-00092-FA-l) 

Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: June 18, 2009 

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Donald Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy, Anne 

Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joshua B. 

Royster, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

Following a jury trial, Donald Morrison was convicted 

of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 371 (2006); fifteen counts of making false statements 

and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 2 

(2006); seven counts of mail fraud and aiding and abetting, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 2 (2006); using, transferring, 

acquiring, and possessing food stamps in an unauthorized manner 

and aiding and abetting, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b) 

(2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and conversion of food stamps, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 2 (2006). Morrison was 

conditionally released pending his sentencing hearing. Before 

sentencing, Morrison fled the jurisdiction, and thus failed to 

appear for his scheduled sentencing hearing on April 25, 2003. 

Morrison was not located and arrested until December 2005. He 

was indicted for failure to appear on April 5, 2006, and on 

March 27, 2007, a jury found Morrison guilty of knowingly 

failing to appear at his April 25, 2003 sentencing. 

 Morrison’s fraud and failure to appear convictions 

were consolidated for sentencing. The district court sentenced 

Morrison to twenty-one months on each of the twenty-five counts 

of fraud, to be served concurrently and six months to be served 

consecutively for failing to appear. Morrison was ordered to 

3 
pay a $50,000 fine, $26,988 in restitution, and a $2600 special 

assessment. He timely appealed, and proceeds pro se. 

 We have reviewed the following claims raised by 

Morrison in his informal brief: (1) various claims of 

prosecutorial misconduct, including the allegation that Morrison 

was denied discovery in his 2002 trial that was later provided 

in his 2006 failure to appear trial; (2) that Morrison was 

precluded from introducing a necessity defense at his failure to 

appear trial and that the indictment for that offense was 

inaccurate; (3) that false allegations were made about food 

stamp reporting requirements and additional claims of 

prosecutorial misconduct; (4) that Morrison faced false mail 

fraud charges; and (5) that the prosecutor made improper 

references to a “slush fund” of food stamps and to Title 7, 

Chapter 51 of the U.S. Code. Upon careful review, we conclude 

that none of these claims are meritorious. We further note that 

Morrison cannot contest his civil forfeiture proceedings in this 

criminal appeal. 

 Morrison’s challenges to his sentence for the most 

part amount to a denial of his guilt. His complaint that he was 

not afforded a restitution hearing is without merit. The 

district court, at sentencing, conducted a lengthy inquiry into 

the amount of loss and the appropriate amount of restitution. 

The court accepted documentary evidence from Morrison and a 

4 
5 

proffer of what his witnesses would have said. The defense 

persuaded the court to reduce the amount of loss and 

restitution to a fraction of that proposed in the presentence 

report, equal to the amount admitted by Morrison. After that 

reduction, Morrison and his standby counsel made no further 

objections. We conclude that the district court’s restitution 

award is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. See

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). 

 Accordingly, we affirm Morrison’s convictions and 

sentence. We grant Morrison’s motion to file a supplemental pro 

se brief and have considered that brief in deciding this appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED