Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-4968
No. 12-8048
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00039-WO-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Franklin Alexander Mills appeals the sentence imposed
following
United
this
States
courts
v.
remand
Simmons,
for
649
resentencing,
F.3d
237
(4th
pursuant
Cir.
2011)
to
(en
Mills
counsel
filed
brief
pursuant
to
Anders
v.
grounds
for
appeal
but
questioning
whether
the
appeal, we affirm.
I.
The sole issue raised in the Anders brief in No. 124968 is whether Mills sentence on remand was reasonable. 2
In
procedural
we
error,
reasonableness
of
the
must
consider
sentence,
the
appropriate
reasonable.
the
tak[ing]
Id.
Guidelines
into
substantive
account
the
range,
it
is
presumptively
against
Montes-Pineda,
the
445
3553(a)
F.3d
375,
factors.
379
(4th
United
Cir.
2006)
States
v.
(internal
F.3d
572,
577
(4th
Cir.
2010)
(providing
standard
of
review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case, and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
278, 283 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining mandate rule and law of the
case doctrine).
This
counsel
believes
that
counsel
may
in
move
representation.
such
this
petition
court
for
would
leave
be
to
frivolous,
withdraw
from
the
district
courts
grant
of
the
3582(c)(2)
the
Sentencing
consistent
with
Commission
applicable
policy
if
such
statements
reduction
issued
by
is
the
Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
Amendment 750
leads us to the conclusion that the district court did not abuse
its
discretion
United
States
(providing
in
v.
granting
Munn,
district
standard
courts
of
order
595
Mills
F.3d
3582(c)(2)
183,
review).
186
(4th
Therefore,
granting
motion.
we
Cir.
affirm
3582(c)(2)
See
2010)
the
sentence
reduction.
III.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment
in
each
of
these
appeals.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument