US v. Donte McMillan, No. 14-4050 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONTE LAMONT MCMILLAN, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). sentenced him to 76 months imprisonment. The district court 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 conclude that the sentence imposed was reasonable. and See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). the necessary appropriately properly procedural treated calculated the and The district court followed steps in Sentencing considered sentencing Guidelines the as applicable McMillan, advisory, Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors in characteristics and history. States v. Carter, 564 light of McMillan s individual See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United F.3d 325, 2 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Specifically, offenses, the the court noted seriousness of McMillan s the offense, deterrence and to protect the public. district court did chosen sentence. not abuse its history and of the firearm need for We conclude that the discretion in imposing the 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, sentence. This court requires that counsel inform McMillan, in writing, of the right we to affirm petition United States for further review. McMillan s the conviction Supreme Court of and the 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
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.
