UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTE LAMONT MCMILLAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00293-CCE-1)
Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 16, 2014
Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Donte Lamont McMillan was
convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). The district court
sentenced him to 76 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, McMillan’s
attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, McMillan has not done so. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
McMillan contends that the sentence imposed is greater
than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing and therefore
is unreasonable. We have reviewed McMillan’s sentence and
conclude that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas,
599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed
the necessary procedural steps in sentencing McMillan,
appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory,
properly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines
range of 63 to 78 months, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors in light of McMillan’s individual
characteristics and history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
Specifically, the court noted McMillan’s history of firearm
offenses, the seriousness of the offense, and the need for
deterrence and to protect the public. We conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate
presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm McMillan’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform McMillan, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If McMillan 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 McMillan. 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
3