UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HASSAN RICHARD MILLER, a/k/a Ernest Danielle Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:97-cr-00726-CMC-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 12, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hassan Richard Miller pled guilty in 2003 to
possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was
sentenced to 262 months imprisonment. Miller appealed, claiming
that his sentence violated the holdings in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). This court agreed and vacated
Miller’s sentence for resentencing consistent with those
opinions. See United States v. Miller, No. 03-4976, 2006 WL
237108 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2006) (unpublished). On remand, the
district court determined that Miller’s total offense level
remained at 36. With a criminal history category IV, the
resulting guideline range remained at 262-327 months
imprisonment. The court again sentenced Miller to 262 months
imprisonment. We again vacated Miller’s sentence because, on
the record before us, we were unable to discern whether the
district court considered the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) (2006) or whether it did so properly. See United States
v. Miller, No. 06-4363, 2008 WL 410460 (4th Cir. Feb. 15, 2008)
(unpublished).
At his third sentencing hearing, the district court
again heard argument from Miller’s counsel for a below-
guidelines sentence based on his conduct in prison and the
lengthy sentence he is currently serving for another (federal)
2
conviction in North Carolina. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the court sentenced Miller to 210 months imprisonment, to run
fully (versus partially) concurrently with his term in North
Carolina. Miller noted a timely appeal.
Miller’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions
whether the sentence was reasonable. Although advised of his
right to do so, Miller has not filed a supplemental pro se
brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review Miller’s sentence for abuse of discretion.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The first
step in this review requires us to ensure that the district
court committed no significant procedural error such as failing
to calculate (or improperly calculating) the guidelines range,
treating the guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence. Id. We then consider the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. When reviewing a
sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence within a
properly-calculated guidelines range is reasonable. Rita v.
3
United States, 551 U.S. 338, , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69
(2007).
The record reveals that the district court applied the
sentencing guidelines as advisory, considered the § 3553(a)
factors, and sentenced Miller within his properly-calculated
advisory guidelines range of 210-262 months of imprisonment.
Under these circumstances, we find the sentence was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
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