US v. John Millner, No. 08-4641 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4641 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN T. MILLNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cr-00014-jpj-pms-1) Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Joel C. Hoppe, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John T. Millner pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) (2006), assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm without just cause or excuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2006), assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) (2006), and possession of prohibited objects intended to be used as weapons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (d)(1)(B) (2006). Millner sentenced to a total of 300 months imprisonment. was His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising four issues meritorious issues for appeal. but stating that there are no Millner was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm. In the Anders brief, counsel questions Millner s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. whether Our review of the transcript of the hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 discloses substantial compliance with that Rule. Although not raised by counsel, we note that the district court failed to inform Millner of the specific term of supervised release to which he was 11(b)(1)(H). subject, as We that find Millner s substantial rights. required this by Fed. omission R. did Crim. not P. affect See United States v. Martinez, 2 277 F.3d review). 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of Finally, the district court ensured that Millner s plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Next, counsel questions whether the district court erred in denying Millner s motion to suppress a statement made to a prison guilty official. waived However, his right nonjurisdictional errors. Millner s to voluntary challenge plea of antecedent, See Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62-63 (1975); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). In addition, counsel questions whether the failure of the institution in which Millner was housed to provide him with redacted copies of discovery materials prejudiced Millner. conclude Millner was not prejudiced. Millner averred that he had We At the Rule 11 hearing, been provided opportunity to review his case with counsel. a sufficient Millner s sworn statements at the Rule 11 hearing are presumed to be true. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977). Finally, counsel questions whether the sentence this case was procedurally and substantively reasonable. in In reviewing a sentence imposed by the district court, an appellate court first examines the sentence for significant procedural errors, including failing to 3 calculate (or improperly calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, [(2006)] failing factors, to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based § on 3553(a) clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . . United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)). court then considers the substantive Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. sentence. review If there are no procedural errors, the appellate entails taking into reasonableness of the Substantive reasonableness account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines range. 128 S. Ct. at 597). Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, If the sentence is within the [g]uidelines range, . . . an appellate court[] may . . . presume that the sentence is reasonable. Id. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court committed no procedural errors in calculating Millner s sentence. the In addition, because Millner s sentence was within advisory reasonable. guidelines range, this court presumes it to be Therefore, we find no error in the imposition of Millner s sentence. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 4 We therefore affirm the judgment. writing, This court requires that counsel inform Millner, in of the right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If Millner 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 Millner. 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 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
