Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20805

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SUPANEE MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-164-1

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Supanee Morris was charged, along with a codefendant, with conspiracy

to commit wire fraud and ten counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud. The

indictment against Morris and her codefendant, both former employees of

Continental Airlines (Continental), resulted from an investigation into the

issuance of 1,011 fraudulent Continental airline tickets valued at $668,647.51.

Following a jury trial, Morris was convicted of all counts alleged in the

indictment. She was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and to three years

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 15, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20805

2

of supervised release. The district court also ordered that Morris was jointly and

severally liable with her codefendant to Continental for restitution in the

amount of $668,647.51.

Morris challenges the district court’s calculation of loss and restitution

amounts. She asserts that testimony at trial indicated that some individuals

were prevented by Continental from using their tickets when it was discovered

that the tickets were indeed fraudulent. Morris contends that “[t]here was no

evidence to show that these tickets were not sold to other passengers, or even

purchased from Continental by the same passengers after they were told their

original tickets were invalid.” Morris thus asserts that the value of these

blocked fraudulent tickets should not have been included in the loss amount

because the tickets did not result in a loss to Continental.

In making factual determinations at sentencing, the district court is

entitled to rely upon the information in the presentence report (PSR) as long as

the information bears some indicia of reliability. United States v. Shipley, 963

F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1992). The defendant bears the burden of presenting

rebuttal evidence to demonstrate that the information in the PSR is inaccurate

or materially untrue. United States v. Washington, 480 F.3d 309, 320 (5th Cir.

2007). “Mere objections do not suffice as competent rebuttal evidence.” United

States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). “Furthermore, if no relevant

affidavits or other evidence is submitted to rebut the information contained in

the PSR, the court is free to adopt its findings without further inquiry or

explanation.” United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995).

In the instant case, Morris did not offer anything to rebut the contents of

the PSR regarding the calculated loss and restitution amounts. The PSR relied

on the evidence submitted at trial, specifically spreadsheets produced by

Continental’s fraud investigator, detailing the fraudulent tickets issued and

their corresponding value to Continental. The assertion by Morris that the

figure should be reduced to account for the fraudulent tickets blocked by
No. 08-20805

3

Continental is conclusory. She offers nothing to show that Continental was able

to resell any of the blocked tickets thereby reducing the loss to less than

$400,000, which would be necessary to lower Morris’s guidelines range. See

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G). Further, Morris’s argument ignores the fact that it

is the “intended loss” that is relevant under § 2B1.1. See § 2B1.1, comment.

(n.3(A)(ii)). As Morris failed to present any rebuttal evidence, the sentencing

court was free to adopt the PSR’s factual finding regarding the loss amount. See

United States v. Tampico, 297 F.3d 396, 404 (5th Cir. 2002).

Given that a restitution award was legally permissible, Morris has also

failed to produce anything to show that the restitution award was an abuse of

the district court’s discretion. See United States v. Chaney, 964 F.2d 437, 451

(5th Cir. 1992) As stated above, Morris has offered nothing to rebut the PSR’s

finding that Continental suffered a loss in the amount of $668,647.51 due to the

offenses committed by Morris and her codefendant.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.