United States v. Mills

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5167
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLTON DEVON MILLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00884-TLW-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton Devon Mills appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a sentence
of ten months of imprisonment, followed by twenty-five months of
supervised release. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues
but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Mills was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, but he
has not done so. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel first questions whether
the district court abused its discretion in finding that Mills
had violated the terms of his supervised release. This court
reviews the district court’s revocation of supervised release
for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d
279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). The district court need only find a
violation of a term of supervised release by a preponderance of
the evidence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 2008); see
United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in determining by a preponderance
of the evidence that Mills violated the terms of his supervised
release.
Counsel next questions whether the sentence imposed by
the district court is reasonable. We will affirm a sentence
2
imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within
the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437-40 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment
of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform
Mills, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If Mills requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Mills. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3