Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20805 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. SU PA N EE M O RR I S , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C R

- 164- 1

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S u pa n ee M orri s w as cha rged, al on g w i t h a codefen da n t , w i t h conspi racy t o c o m m i tw i r e f

r auda nd t e n coun t s of a i di ng anda be t t i ng w i r e f r aud
. The i n di ct m en tagainstM orri s and her codefen da n t , both f orm er em pl oye es of Cont i ne nt alAi r l i ne s ( Cont i ne nt al) , r e s ul t ed f r o m a n i nve s t i ga t i o n i nt o t he i ss uance of

1, 011 f r audul entC ont i nent alair l i ne t i c ket s val ued at$668, 647. 51. Foll o w i ng a j ur y t r i al , M o r r i s w as c o nvic t e d o f a l lc o unt s a l l eged in t he i n di ct m en t
. Sh e w as sentenced to 46 m on t h s of i m pri sonm en tan d to t h ree years United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20805

2 o f sup e rvi s e d r e l e as e . The d i s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o o r de r e d thatM o r r i s w as j o i nt l y and
s e ver all y l i ab l e w i t h he rc o de fe nda ntt o Cont i ne nt alf o rr e s t i t ut i o n i n t he
am ountof

$668, 647. 51. M orri s c h al l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c al cul ati onof l oss an d rest i t u t i on a m o u n ts . S h e a s s e r ts th a t t e s tim o n ya t t r ia l in d ic a te dth a t s o m e in d iv id u a ls
w ere prevented by C on t i n en t alf rom u si n g t h ei r t i ckets w h en itw as di scovered t hatt he t i c ke t s w e r e i nde e d f r aud ul e nt
. M o r r i s c o nt e nds t h at “[t] he r e w as no evi den ce t o show t h a t t h ese t i ckets w ere not sol d to ot h er passeng ers, or even p u r c h a s e dfr o m C o n tin e n ta l b y th e s a m e p a s s e n g e r s a fte rth e yw e r e to ldth e ir
o r ig in a l tic k e t s w e r e in v a lid .” M orri s th u s asser t s th at th e val u e of t h ese bl o c ke d f

r aud ul e ntt i cke t s s ho ul d no tha veb e e n i nc l ude d i n t he l o s s a m o unt b e c a u s e th e tic k e ts d idn o t r e s u lt in alo s s to C o n tin e n ta l. In m a k in gfa c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n s a ts e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is ent i t l ed t o r ely upon t he i nf or m at i on i n t he pres ent enc e re por t( PS R ) as l ong as th e in fo r m a tio nb e a r s s o m e in d ic iao f r e lia b ility
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. S h i pley , 963 F. 2d5 6, 5 9 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 2)
. The de fe nda ntb e ar s t he b ur de n o f pr e s e nt i ng reb u ttale vid en ce to d em on strate tha t th e inform a ti on i n the P S R i s i n a ccu ra te
o rm a te r ia llyu n tr u e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ash i ngt on , 480 F
. 3d 309 , 320 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). “M ere obj ection s d o no t su ff i ce as com p eten t rebu ttalev i d en ce.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Parker , 133 F
. 3d322 , 329 ( 5th C i r . 199 8)
. “ Fur t he r m o r e , i f no r e l e va nt
a ffid a v its o ro th e re v id e n c e is s u b m itt e dto re b u t th e in fo r m a tio n c o n ta in e din t h e P S R , t h e courti s f ree t o adop tit s f

i n di n gs w i t h ou tfu rth e r i n qu i ry or ex p l a n a ti on . ” Uni t e d St at e sv . Vi t al , 6 8 F .3d1 1 4 , 1 2 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). In t h e i n st an tcase, M orri s di d n otof fer any t h i n g t o rebut th e contents of t h e P S R regardi n g t h e cal cul ated l oss an d r est i t u t i on am ou n t s. T h e P S R reli ed on t he e vi denc e s ubm i tted att r i al , s pec i f i c al l y s pre adshe et s pro duce d by Cont i ne nt al ’ s f

r audi nve s t i ga t o r , de t ail i ng t he f r aud ul e ntt i c ke t s i s s ue d a nd t he i rc o r r e s po ndi ng value to Cont i ne nt al
. The a s s e r t i o n b y M o r r i s t hatt he f i gures houl d be red u ced t o a c c ountf ort he f

r audul entt i c ket s bl oc ked byN o. 08- 20805

3 C o n tin e n ta l is co n c lu s o r y . S h e o ffe r s n o th in gt o s h o w th a t C o n tin e n ta l w a s a b le t o resella n y o f

t he bl oc ked t i c ket s t her eby r educ i ng t he l os s t o l es s t han $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 , w h ic h w o u ldb e n e c e s s a r yto lo w e rM o r r i s ’s g u id e lin e s ra n g e . S ee U .S .S .G
. § 2 B 1 .1 (b )(1 )(G ). F u r th e r , M o r r is ’ s a r g u m e n t ig n o r e s th e fa c t t h a t it is th e “in te n d e d lo s s ” t h a t is re le v a n t u n d e r§ 2 B 1 .1
. S ee§ 2B 1
. 1 , com m en t. (n. 3(A) (i i) )
. As M o r r i s fail e d t o pr e s e nta ny r e but t ale vi de nc e , t he s e nt e nc i ng c o u r t w a s fr e e to a d o p t t h e P S R ’ s fa c tu a l fin d in gre g a r d in gth e lo s s a m o u n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. T

ampic o , 2 9 7 F .3d3 9 6 , 4 0 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). G iven t h at a r estitu tion aw ard w as l egally perm i ssibl e, M orri s has al so fai l ed to produ ce any t h i n g t o show t h at th e res t i t u t i on aw a rd w a s a n abu se of t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s c r e t i o n. See Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ch an ey , 9 6 4 F
. 2 d 437, 451 (5 t h C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ) A s s t a t e da b o v e , M o r r is h a s o ffe r e dn o t h in gto r e b u tth e P S R ’s f i ndi ng t hatCon t i ne nt als uf fe r e d al o s s i n t he a m o unto f $ 66 8, 64 7. 51 duet o t he offen ses com m i tted b y M orris an dh er co d efen d a n t. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.