UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM LOGAN MORRIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-7076

(D.C. No. 6:22-CR-00120-JFH-1)

(E.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Defendant William Morris pleaded guilty to one count of arson in Indian 

Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 81, 1151 and 1153. The district court 

sentenced Mr. Morris to 37 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay restitution 

in the amount of $15,000. Mr. Morris now appeals, arguing there was insufficient 

evidence to support the amount of the restitution order. The government concedes 

the error. Consequently, exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 16, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-7076 Document: 010111095758 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 1
2

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the district court’s restitution order and remand the case 

to the district court for proper determination of the restitution amount.

I

Prior to January 3, 2022, Mr. Morris and his girlfriend lived with Mr. Morris’s 

brother, W.V.M., in a mobile home located in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The mobile 

home was owned by Bluffview Enterprises, LLC (Bluffview), and leased to 

W.V.M.’s girlfriend.

On January 3, 2022, W.V.M. kicked Mr. Morris and his girlfriend out of the 

mobile home because they were causing issues at the home. Mr. Morris and his 

girlfriend retaliated against W.V.M. by breaking into the mobile home early the next 

morning and destroying items inside the home. Mr. Morris also set fire to a nylon 

cord that was attached to the wall of W.V.M.’s bedroom. The fire spread to the rest 

of the bedroom and eventually the entire structure. W.V.M. and his family were not 

home at the time of the fire. 

Mr. Morris was interviewed by law enforcement officers on January 6, 2022, 

and admitted to breaking into W.V.M.’s home and setting the fire.

II

A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Morris on one count of arson in Indian 

Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 81, 1151, and 1153, and one count of arson, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).

Mr. Morris pleaded guilty, without benefit of a plea agreement, to the arson in 

Indian Country charge. The remaining count was dismissed by the government.

Appellate Case: 23-7076 Document: 010111095758 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 2
3

A presentence investigation report (PSR) was prepared and submitted to the 

district court and the parties. The PSR calculated an advisory guideline 

imprisonment range of 37 to 46 months. The PSR also noted that, under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3663A and U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1, an order of restitution was required in the case. The 

PSR stated that Bluffview intended to seek restitution for the disposal and 

replacement of the mobile home, and that Bluffview had verbally estimated the 

amount of its loss to be approximately $15,000. The PSR noted, however, that the 

probation office had not received any written estimates from Bluffview. Neither party 

objected to the PSR.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the PSR’s calculations and 

imposed a sentence of 37 months’ imprisonment. Regarding the issue of restitution, 

the government advised the district court that Bluffview had submitted a written 

estimate of $84,650 to remove the burned mobile home. The government conceded, 

however, that this written estimate was untimely. The district court did not consider 

the written estimate and instead ordered Mr. Morris to pay restitution to Bluffview in 

the amount of $15,000.

Mr. Morris now appeals the district court’s restitution order.

III

“Ordinarily, we review the legality of a restitution order de novo, the district 

court’s factual findings for clear error, and the amount of restitution for abuse of 

discretion.” United States v. Allen, 983 F.3d 463, 472 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). But where, as here, “the defendant has not properly 

Appellate Case: 23-7076 Document: 010111095758 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 3
4

preserved the issue below, . . . we review a restitution order for plain error.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Although establishing plain error is normally an onerous burden for a 

defendant, in this case the government concedes the district court plainly erred in 

determining the amount of restitution. As a result, both parties agree that the $15,000 

figure contained in the PSR was never verified by the probation office or the 

government and, as a result, could not function as the basis for the district court’s 

restitution order. Further, both parties agree that the matter should be remanded to 

the district court for further proceedings.

IV

We therefore vacate the district court’s restitution order and remand the case

for proper determination of the restitution amount.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 23-7076 Document: 010111095758 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 4