Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas E. MILLS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4385.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 23, 2006.
    Decided: Sept. 28, 2006.
    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.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Douglas E. Mills appeals the twelvemonth 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, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.2006). 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.