NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 22-2781 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SHAQUILL MORRIS, Appellant ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-20-cr-00438-001) District Judge: Hon. Gene E. K. Pratter ____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 26, 2023

Before: HARDIMAN, FREEMAN, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 27, 2023)

____________

OPINION* ____________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Shaquill Morris appeals his judgment of sentence, claiming the District Court

erroneously calculated his Guidelines range by designating him as a career offender. We

will affirm.

I

On October 13, 2020, two Philadelphia police officers arrested Morris, a convicted

felon, after being notified that he was illegally possessing a firearm. They recovered a

loaded handgun, over 5 grams of cocaine base, and an unspecified quantity of

phencyclidine (PCP). Pursuant to a federal search warrant, law enforcement searched

Morris’s residence on November 13, 2020, seizing another handgun and at least 120

grams of heroin, 4 grams of fentanyl, 4 grams of cocaine base, and 213 grams of PCP

(with nearly 15 grams constituting the amount of pure substance). Morris was indicted for

possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of

(g)(1) (Count One);

possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of

(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(C) (Count Two); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking

crime, in violation of

(c)(1)(A) (Count Three). He pleaded guilty to all

three counts.

Based on Morris’s prior Pennsylvania convictions for robbery and possession with

intent to deliver a controlled substance (marijuana), the United States Probation Office

concluded that Morris qualified as a career offender under § 4B1.1(a) of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines. In the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), the Probation

Office calculated the Guidelines range for Morris as 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment.

2 In response to Morris’s objection to the career offender classification, the Probation

Office issued a PSR Addendum in which it determined that Morris’s Guidelines range

would be 130 to 147 months absent the career offender enhancement.

At sentencing, the District Court rejected Morris’s objection to the career offender

classification and adopted the PSR’s factual findings and, accordingly, the higher

Guidelines range. After considering the sentencing factors in

(a), the

Court applied a downward variance and sentenced Morris to 216 months’ imprisonment

and 5 years of supervised release. In doing so, the Court also stated that if Morris did not

qualify as a career offender, it would have imposed the same sentence as an upward

variance from the otherwise applicable Guidelines range of 130 to 147 months.

Morris timely appealed his sentence,1 arguing that the District Court erred in

sentencing him as a career offender because neither offense identified by the Probation

Office constituted a predicate offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).

II

We need not decide whether the District Court erred in determining that Morris’s

prior felony convictions constituted predicate offenses under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)

because any error would have been harmless. See United States v. Carter,

,

193–94 (3d Cir. 2013). The District Court was aware of both Guidelines ranges at

sentencing, and it adequately explained why it would have varied upward from a

Guidelines range of 130 to 147 months’ imprisonment to arrive at the 216-month

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under

. We have jurisdiction under

and

. 3 sentence even if Morris were not a career offender. At the sentencing hearing and in its

post-sentencing opinion, the Court explained the purposes of a long sentence in light of

the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, emphasizing the need for deterrence and incapacitation

in light of Morris’s extensive criminal history and the dangerousness of his crimes.

Constituting more than a “bald statement” that we have rejected as “not sufficiently

detailed,” the District Court’s alternative rationale for imposing the 216-month sentence

was adequately explained, and any error in applying the career-offender enhancement

would have been harmless. See Carter, 730 F.3d at 193–94; United States v. Zabielski,

, 387–89 (3d Cir. 2013).

* * *

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

4