US v. Terrence McNeill, No. 12-4902 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRENCE MAURICE MCNEILL, a/k/a Lil Fred, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00031-BR-1) Submitted: April 22, 2013 Decided: July 5, 2013 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey William Gillette, GILLETTE LAW FIRM, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrence Maurice McNeill appeals the district court s amended judgment resentencing him to the mandatory minimum sixty months grams in prison or more § 841(a)(1) pursuant to after of he pled cocaine (2006). base McNeill s Anders v. guilty in to distributing violation attorney California, has 386 of 21 filed U.S. fifty U.S.C. a 738 brief (1967), asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court s judgment was unreasonable, imposing a sentence of 60 months to run consecutively to Mr. McNeill s sentence upon the revocation of his supervised release. McNeill has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the additional issue of whether he should [have been] charge[d] for the actual amount of cocaine base rather than the total weight of the mixture. We review discretion standard. a (2007). that under a deferential abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The first step in this review requires us to ensure the error, sentence We affirm. district such as court committed improperly no calculating significant the procedural Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). procedurally reasonable, we then 2 United States v. If the sentence is consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. Susi, 674 statutorily F.3d 278, required 289 (4th sentence is Cir. per United States v. 2012). se Moreover, reasonable. a United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the record and conclude that McNeill s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing him. The district court did not err in finding that McNeill was accountable for 54.7 grams of cocaine base. Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 459 (1991). See To the extent that McNeill seeks to challenge the drug quantity that he was charged with distributing or his conviction, we conclude that he has waived the right to raise this issue. See United States v. Pileggi, 703 F.3d 675, 680 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 644 (4th Cir. 2004). We further conclude that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying McNeill s request to run his mandatory minimum sentence concurrently with his previous sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release in another criminal case based on the new criminal conduct to which 3 he pled guilty in this case. The district court recognized that it had the authority to grant McNeill s request, but reasonably determined that it was not warranted in this case. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c) & cmt. n.3(C) (2011); United States v. Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 1996). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We deny McNeill s motion for leave to file supplemental material as an attachment to his brief. This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
