Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04597/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04597-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Drew Elliott McGill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DREW ELLIOTT MCGILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,

Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00204-WLO)

Submitted: January 9, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4597 Doc: 28 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Drew Elliott McGill pled guilty to one count of

possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). On appeal, he

challenges the district court’s imposition of the statutory maximum

sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We find that the district court properly applied the

Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing

factors before imposing the 120-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Additionally, we find that the

sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445

F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.

2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness

accorded within-guidelines sentence). Accordingly, we affirm

McGill’s sentence.

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

Appeal: 07-4597 Doc: 28 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 2