UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4382
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN JAMES MILLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:97-cr-00815-DCN-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 28, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, North Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen James Mills appeals the district court’s
amended judgment modifying the terms of repayment for his
restitution. Mills contends that (1) his waiver of appearance
was not knowing or voluntary and he should have been present at
resentencing, and (2) the sentence was procedurally
unreasonable. We affirm.
We conclude that the district court was without
jurisdiction to resentence Mills except to the extent that it
granted Mills’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) habeas corpus petition
and directed that restitution be modified. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2006); see Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 530 (4th
Cir. 2010) (district court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
not without limits). We further conclude that given Mills’
signed statement waiving his right to be present at resentencing
and that the court granted him the relief he sought in his
§ 2241 petition, we find no plain error regarding his absence.
See United States v. Rhodes, 32 F.3d 867, 874 (4th Cir. 1994)
(stating standard of review).
We affirm the amended judgment. 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
2