UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DERRICK EARL MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY J. ROBINSON; JANICE DENISE ROSEMOND;
DAVID ATKINS; SHIRLEY ATKINS; JAMES BRAZEL,
Parties in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CR-04-22)
Submitted: May 17, 2006 Decided: June 16, 2006
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James F. Brehm, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Earl Miller appeals the 754-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty to armed bank robbery (Counts 1, 3,
5), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d) (2000), and using
a firearm during a crime of violence (Counts 2, 4, 6), in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West 2000 & Supp.
2005). Miller’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the consecutive
sentences imposed pursuant to § 924(c) violate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Counsel states, however, that in his view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Miller has filed pro se supplemental briefs.
We affirm.
Miller did not object at sentencing to the imposition of
multiple consecutive sentences on the § 924(c) counts; thus, our
review is for plain error. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
547 (4th Cir. 2005). “This court has held that proportionality
review is not available for any sentence less than life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole.” United States v.
Ming Hong, 242 F.3d 528, 532 (4th Cir. 2001). Because Miller’s
sentence is less than life imprisonment, the proportionality of his
sentence is not reviewable on appeal.
In his pro se supplemental briefs, Miller contends that
the second superseding indictment is multiplicitous and that the
- 3 -
district court was biased against him. Our review of the record
leads us to conclude that these claims are without merit. Miller
also asserts that counsel provided ineffective assistance. We “may
address [such claims] on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s
ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.” United
States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 1407 (2006). Because counsel’s ineffectiveness is not
apparent from the face of the record, we decline to review this
claim on direct appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Miller’s convictions and sentence. We deny
Miller’s motion for copies of certain documents. 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
- 4 -