UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DESEAN MALIK MILLSAPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00028-RLV-DSC-1)
Submitted: September 19, 2016 Decided: October 6, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Desean Malik Millsaps appeals the criminal judgment imposed
following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute an unspecified quantity of
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012), and
four counts of distribution or possession with intent to
distribute unspecified quantities of heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Millsaps’ attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning, in general terms, the reasonableness of Millsaps’
97-month sentence. We affirm.
We conclude that Millsaps’ sentence is both procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The district court properly
calculated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and
appropriately explained the selected below-Guidelines sentence
in the context of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, without relying on any “clearly erroneous facts.”
United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 528 (4th Cir. 2014).
Thus, our review of the record reveals no procedural error in
Millsaps’ sentence.
Nor do we find merit in counsel’s nonspecific argument that
Millsaps’ below-Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court offered ample reasons, rooted
2
in the § 3553(a) factors, for rejecting the downward variance
counsel sought in this case, and we thus conclude that Millsaps
has failed to rebut the presumption of substantive
reasonableness afforded his below-Guidelines sentence. United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014); see Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (explaining that
appellate courts “must give due deference to the district
court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify
the extent of the variance”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and find no meritorious ground for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Millsaps, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Millsaps 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 Millsaps. 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