UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4723
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MINGO MILES, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-05-75-TLW)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Acting
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Rose Mary Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mingo Miles, III, appeals from his eighty-one-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine and using or carrying a firearm during
and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 924(c)(1)(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005).
Miles’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues
for appeal, but addressing the validity of Miles’ plea and the
propriety of his sentence. Miles was informed of his right to file
a pro se brief, but he has not done so. Because our review of the
record discloses no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that Miles’ guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Miles was properly advised of his rights, the
offenses charged, the maximum sentence for each offense, and the
minimum sentence for the firearm offense. The court also
determined that there was an independent factual basis for the plea
and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises.
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); United States
v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
We find no error by the district court in declining to
adjust Miles’ offense level downward for acceptance of
responsibility, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(a)
- 2 -
(2004), after concluding that his continued use of marijuana
demonstrated that he had not accepted responsibility for his
criminal conduct. The district court properly computed Miles’
offense level and criminal history category and correctly
determined the advisory guideline range of twenty-one to twenty-
seven months on the drug charge, plus a consecutive sixty-month
minimum term for the firearm offense. The eighty-one-month total
sentence for the two offenses was at the low end of the advisory
range and was reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Miles’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client 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 the client. 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 -