United States v. Mills , 201 F. App'x 156 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4385
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS E. MILLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:97-00205)
Submitted: August 23, 2006 Decided: September 28, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas E. Mills appeals the twelve-month plus one day
prison term imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He
argues that his prison sentence is unreasonable because it does not
further the goals of supervised release, and that drug treatment
serves the purpose of transitioning Mills into the community under
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.
In imposing sentence, the court considered the statutory
maximum, the advisory guideline range, and Mills’ history of
violations, and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the advisory
range. The court properly considered the number and nature of
Mills’ supervised release violations in determining this sentence,
in accordance with 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553 (a)(1), (a)(2)(B),
(a)(2)(C), 3583(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). We conclude that
Mills’ sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup,
___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2243586 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006) (No. 05-
4048). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny as moot Mills’ motion to expedite his appeal. We
grant Mills’ motion to 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 -