United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-60660 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

James Allen Morris, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 2:02-CR-74-1 

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Following the revocation of James Allen Morris’s term of supervised 

release, the district court sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment 

and three years of supervised release. He now appeals that revocation 

sentence. Although he was released before briefing was completed, his appeal 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 8, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-60660 Document: 00516272901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2022
No. 21-60660 

2 

is not moot because he remains subject to a term of supervised release. See 

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 

While Morris’s revocation proceedings were pending, and after he 

was appointed counsel, he filed a pro se motion seeking a reduction of his 

term of supervised release under the First Step Act of 2018. The district 

court denied that motion primarily because Morris was not permitted to 

submit pro se motions while he was represented by counsel, although the 

district court also noted that Morris did not warrant relief based on the 

underlying merits of his request. Although Morris challenges the district 

court’s denial of that motion, the record does not show that he submitted a 

timely notice of appeal for that denial. However, there is no need for us to 

remand this case for a determination as to whether Morris’s untimely notice 

of appeal warranted an extension of time for excusable neglect under Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4) because the deadline for filing a timely 

notice of appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional, the Government has 

filed a responsive brief without challenging the timeliness of Morris’s appeal, 

and Morris’s appeal on this basis lacks merit. See United States v. Martinez, 

496 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 

(5th Cir. 2000). By challenging only the secondary basis for the district 

court’s denial of his sentence-reduction motion, he has abandoned any 

challenge to that primary, and dispositive, basis for the district court’s denial. 

See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th 

Cir. 1987). 

Morris also challenges the second special condition of supervised 

release imposed as part of his original sentence in 2003. A defendant may not 

use an appeal from the revocation of his term of supervised release to attack 

his original sentence. United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 

2005). Moreover, because Morris neglected to contest that condition in his 

Case: 21-60660 Document: 00516272901 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2022
No. 21-60660 

3 

earlier appeal, the waiver doctrine bars consideration of this issue. See United 

States v. Smith, 814 F.3d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 2016). 

In his final argument, Morris argues that his revocation sentence was 

unreasonable because the district court included an additional term of 

supervised release based on an impermissible basis. Our review of the record 

shows that the district court included the additional term of supervised 

release due to Morris’s need for medical treatment regarding his underlying 

pain issues so that he would not continue self-medicating with illegal drugs. 

Morris’s need for medical care was a permissible factor in fashioning his 

revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D); United States v. Miller, 

634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Morris has failed to show that 

the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-60660 Document: 00516272901 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2022