UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT DEWAYNE MILLIGAN, a/k/a Wayne,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00669-RBH-6)
Submitted: June 16, 2014 Decided: June 26, 2014
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beattie B. Ashmore, BEATTIE B. ASHMORE, P.A., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Dewayne Milligan pled guilty in accordance with
a written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012).
Middleton was sentenced to 168 months in prison. He now
appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the guilty plea was valid and the sentence reasonable but
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Milligan has filed a pro se brief raising one issue. We affirm.
After careful review, we conclude that the guilty plea
was valid. Milligan stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing
that he was twenty-nine, had a tenth grade education, and was
not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He said that he
was completely satisfied with his attorney’s services. Milligan
represented that he was guilty, and he agreed that the case
agent’s summary of the offense was accurate. He affirmed that
his plea was not the result of threats or promises other than
those contained in the plea agreement. Finally, the district
court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
With respect to sentencing, Milligan was found to be a
career offender because of two prior felony drug convictions.
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1(a) (2012). Milligan
2
concedes that he was convicted of those offenses. He argues,
however, that, because he received a suspended sentence for
each, neither qualifies as a predicate felony for purposes of
§ 4B1.1(a). We reject this position, noting simply that there
is no requirement that an offender have served time for a prior
felony conviction for it to qualify under the Guideline.
We conclude that Milligan’s sentence is procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The district court correctly
calculated the Guidelines range, addressed the applicable 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, considered the
arguments of the parties, and made an individualized assessment
in selecting the 168-month sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
328-30 (4th Cir. 2009). Further, the sentence is reasonable
given the totality of the circumstances. See id.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform Milligan, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Milligan 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
3
was served on Milligan. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4