United States v. Miller , 19 F. App'x 30 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-6493
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM PATRICK MILLER, a/k/a Scoop,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-98-7-MU)
    Submitted:   June 12, 2001                 Decided:   June 21, 2001
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Patrick Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    William Patrick Miller appeals the district court’s order
    denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, in which he
    sought a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.    We have
    reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
    abuse of discretion. United States v. Christy, 
    3 F.3d 765
    , 768 (4th
    Cir. 1993) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court.   United States v. Miller, No.
    CR-98-7-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 15, 2001; entered Feb. 16, 2001).
    Miller also asserts for the first time on appeal that he is
    entitled to a new trial on drug quantity in light of the Supreme
    Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000).
    We reject his claim because there is no error, plain or otherwise,
    given that Miller received a 235-month sentence. See United States
    v. White, 
    238 F.3d 537
    , 542 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that statutory
    maximum is twenty years when drug quantity is not charged as ele-
    ment of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt), cert.
    denied,       U.S.    , 
    2001 WL 487738
     (U.S. June 4, 2001) (No. 00-
    9732).    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: 01-6493

Citation Numbers: 19 F. App'x 30

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 6/21/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023