United States v. Jihad Morales

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 24-12830
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-12830 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12830 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

JIHAD WILLIAM MORALES, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cr-00234-CEM-EJK-1 ____________________

Before JORDAN, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jihad William Morales appeals his sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to various money laundering and structuring offenses. He contends that the district court erred USCA11 Case: 24-12830 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12830

in applying a 14-level loss amount enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), based on an intended loss amount of $768,485.10. In his view, the court should have used the actual loss amount, which was $80,050.00. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. We review a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and the determination of the amount of loss involved in the offense for clear error. See United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135, 1151 (11th Cir. 2017). We will overturn a district court’s loss calculation under the clear error standard when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been com- mitted. See id. Mr. Morales’ argument is that the court erred by using intended loss rather than actual loss, and that legal conten- tion triggers plenary review. Under the 2023 version of § 2B1.1, the guideline applicable to theft and fraud offenses, a defendant receives an enhancement to his offense level if “the loss” exceeds $6,500. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) (2023). A defendant is subject to an 8-level enhance- ment if the offense results in a loss amount greater than $40,000 and less than or equal to $95,000, and is subject to a 14-level en- hancement if the offense results in a loss amount greater than $550,000 and less than or equal to $1,500,000. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(E), (H) (2023). The 2023 commentary to § 2B1.1(b)(1) provided that “loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss.” See id., comment. (n.3(A)). USCA11 Case: 24-12830 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2026 Page: 3 of 4

24-12830 Opinion of the Court 3

Effective November 1, 2024, the Sentencing Commission amended § 2B1.1(b)(1) by moving the language defining “loss” as “the greater of actual loss or intended loss” from the commentary to the text of the guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(A) (2024); U.S.S.G., App’x C Supp., Amend. 827. A court defers to the commentary to the Sentencing Guide- lines only if the text of the applicable guideline is ambiguous. See United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). Last year, applying the framework set out in Dupree, we held that a district court did not err in using intended loss rather than actual loss to calculate the loss amount under § 2B1.1(b)(1) because the term “loss” in the text of the pre-2024 version of § 2B1.1(b)(1) was unambiguous in incorporating the greater of actual or in- tended loss. Thus, we did not need to consult the commentary. See United States v. Horn, 129 F.4th 1275, 1299–1300 (11th Cir. 2025). We also held in Horn that Amendment 827 to the Guidelines, which moved the definition of loss from the commentary to the text of § 2B1.1(b)(1), was a clarifying amendment that applied ret- roactively on direct appeal and further supported a conclusion that loss is the greater of actual or intended loss. See id. at 1300–01. A prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abro- gation by the Supreme Court or by our court sitting en banc. See, e.g., United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). Mr. Morales’ argument that the district court was required to use actual USCA11 Case: 24-12830 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12830

loss rather than intended loss is foreclosed by Horn, a published and binding decision. We therefore affirm the 70-month sentence. AFFIRMED.