United States v. Mills , 425 F. App'x 276 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4382
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    STEPHEN JAMES MILLS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
    Judge. (2:97-cr-00815-DCN-1)
    Submitted:   March 31, 2011                 Decided:   April 28, 2011
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, North Myrtle Beach,
    South Carolina, for Appellant.       William N. Nettles, United
    States   Attorney,  Sean   Kittrell,   Assistant  United States
    Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen       James     Mills          appeals     the     district       court’s
    amended   judgment       modifying       the       terms     of     repayment     for   his
    restitution.      Mills contends that (1) his waiver of appearance
    was not knowing or voluntary and he should have been present at
    resentencing,       and     (2)         the        sentence         was     procedurally
    unreasonable.     We affirm.
    We    conclude        that     the          district     court   was      without
    jurisdiction to resentence Mills except to the extent that it
    granted Mills’ 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2006) habeas corpus petition
    and   directed    that    restitution             be    modified.         See   
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c) (2006); see Timms v. Johns, 
    627 F.3d 525
    , 530 (4th
    Cir. 2010) (district court’s authority under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     is
    not   without    limits).        We     further         conclude    that    given    Mills’
    signed statement waiving his right to be present at resentencing
    and that the court granted him the relief he sought in his
    § 2241 petition, we find no plain error regarding his absence.
    See United States v. Rhodes, 
    32 F.3d 867
    , 874 (4th Cir. 1994)
    (stating standard of review).
    We affirm the amended judgment.                        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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4382

Citation Numbers: 425 F. App'x 276

Judges: Davis, King, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/28/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023