US v. Kevin Miller, No. 08-5100 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN MILLER, a/k/a Kevin Millen, a/k/a Cakes, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00478-JFM-7) Submitted: March 18, 2010 Decided: April 1, 2010 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph J. Gigliotti, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Miller appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 846 (2006). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal but arguing that the trial court erred in enhancing Miller s offense level based on facts not found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury, such as finding that Miller qualified as a career offender, an organizer or leader in a criminal activity involving five or more participants, and had obstructed justice by threatening Jersey, 530 a U.S. witness, 466, 490 in violation (2000). of Apprendi Additionally, v. New Miller has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising several additional issues. The Government has indicated that it will not file a brief. We affirm. While we generally review sentences for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), because Miller did not raise his procedural challenge court, our review is for plain error. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. before the district See Fed. R. Crim. P. 725, 731-32 (1993). Though Miller asserts that facts supporting enhancements to a defendant s offense level must be admitted by the defendant or 2 found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the remedial portion of United States v. Booker explicitly rejected such an approach. 543 U.S. 220, 246 (2005). After Booker, the sentencing court continues to make factual findings concerning sentencing factors by a preponderance of the evidence. 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Morris, court did not err in the Accordingly, the district manner suggested by Miller. Additionally, we find Miller s sentence to be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record for any meritorious issues pertaining to Miller s convictions carefully and have reviewed supplemental brief the and found none. issues find Additionally, raised them to in be Miller s without we pro merit. have se We accordingly affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts 3 and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
