2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-23-2005 

# U SA v . M orri s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3050

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M orr i s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 505. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/505J u d g e Ch e r t o f f r e s i g n e d p r i o rt o th e v a c a tu ro f th i s p a n e l ’ s e a r l i e rd e c i s i o n . On * rem an d , this case w as d ec ided b ya q u o rum o f th e o ri g inal p an el. S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 6 (d). NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 3050 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CL EV ELA N D M O RR I S, a/k/a S H Y E M K H A L IL M O R R IS C l eveland M orr i s, A ppel l ant ON A P P EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 03- cr - 00711 D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: T he H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y13, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , FU E N T E S, and C H E R T O FF, C i r cui tJ udges * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: Sept ember23, 2005)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M: T his case r eturns t o u s on rem and from the S up rem e C ou rtof the U nit ed S t at es, w h ich v a c a ted th is C o u rt’s d e c isio n d ism iss in g C lev e lan d M o rris’ s a p p e a l f ro m h is s ent ence i n a cr i m i nal cas e. See M orr i s v. U ni t ed St at es , 125 S. C t . 1959 ( 2005) . T he Supr eme C our ti ns t ruct ed us t o r econs i derourdeci s i on i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . H avi ng car eful l yr econs i der ed i t , w e conc l ude thatour ear l i eror derw as corr ect , and w e aga i n di s m i s s M orr i s ’ s appea l forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. O u r de cisi o n is co n str aine d b yU n it ed S tat es v . L o ck ett , 4 0 6 F . 3 d 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 2005) . T he C our tt her e hel d t hat“w her e a c r i m i nal defe ndanthas vol unt ar i l yand know i ngl yent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementi n w hi ch he ors he w ai ves the r i ghtt o appea l , t he d ef en d an t i s n o t entit led to rese n tenc ing in li g h t of B o o k er.” Id. at 21 4 . T h e C o u rt exp l ai ned t hat the k no w i ng ness and vo l un t ari ness of a p l ea are not vi t i at ed justbecau se th e d e f e n d a n t co u ld n o t f

o re se e th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld late r g ra n t h im a rig h t to c h a lle n g e th e m a n d a to ry a p p lic a tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s to h is c a s e . S e e id . a t 2 1 3 -1 4 . S in c e th e ter m s o f

M o rris’ s g u iltyp lea m irro r th o se in L o c k e tt, se e id . at 2 1 2 -1 3 , M o rris has s i m i l ar l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o chal l enge hi s s ent ence . M or r i s ar gues t hathi s appea l m aypr ocee d underan exc ept i on s etfor t h i n t he pl ea agr eementfors ent ence s t hat“exc eed the s t atut orym axi m um , ” butthe s ent ence here c e iv e d d id n o t trigg e r th a t ex c e p tio n . A t h is p lea c o llo q u y , M o rris c lea rlya d m itt e d to

h a v in g b e e n “ a c o n v ic te d f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm .” T r. a t 8 ; s e e a ls o id . a t 1 7 -1 8 . T h is cri m e, a v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), ca rri es a m ax im u m sen tenc e o f ten y ea rs o f im p riso n m e n t. S e e id . § 9 2 4 (a )(2 ). M o rris a c k n o w led g e d a t th e p lea c o llo q u yth a t th is w as t he maxi m um s ent ence he fa ced. T r . at9. T he s ent ence he ac tual l yr ece i ved, 90 m ont hs , t hus fel l w el l s hyof the maxi m um he coul d have r ece i ved bas ed on the fa ct s he admi t t ed att he col l oquy . B eca us e hi s s ent ence does notcome w i t hi n one of the exce pt i ons s etfor t h i n t he pl ea a gr eement , M orr i s ’ s appea l i s for ecl os ed and mustbe di s m i s s ed.