UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

HASSAN RICHARD MILLER, a/k/a Ernest Danielle Smith, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:97-cr-00726-CMC-1) 

Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 12, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Hassan Richard Miller pled guilty in 2003 to 

possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was 

sentenced to 262 months imprisonment. Miller appealed, claiming 

that his sentence violated the holdings in United States v. 

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 

F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005). This court agreed and vacated 

Miller’s sentence for resentencing consistent with those 

opinions. See United States v. Miller, No. 03-4976, 2006 WL 

237108 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2006) (unpublished). On remand, the 

district court determined that Miller’s total offense level 

remained at 36. With a criminal history category IV, the 

resulting guideline range remained at 262-327 months 

imprisonment. The court again sentenced Miller to 262 months 

imprisonment. We again vacated Miller’s sentence because, on 

the record before us, we were unable to discern whether the 

district court considered the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a) (2006) or whether it did so properly. See United States 

v. Miller, No. 06-4363, 2008 WL 410460 (4th Cir. Feb. 15, 2008) 

(unpublished). 

 At his third sentencing hearing, the district court 

again heard argument from Miller’s counsel for a belowguidelines sentence based on his conduct in prison and the 

lengthy sentence he is currently serving for another (federal) 

2 
conviction in North Carolina. At the conclusion of the hearing, 

the court sentenced Miller to 210 months imprisonment, to run 

fully (versus partially) concurrently with his term in North 

Carolina. Miller noted a timely appeal. 

 Miller’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions 

whether the sentence was reasonable. Although advised of his 

right to do so, Miller has not filed a supplemental pro se 

brief. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 We review Miller’s sentence for abuse of discretion. 

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The first 

step in this review requires us to ensure that the district 

court committed no significant procedural error such as failing 

to calculate (or improperly calculating) the guidelines range, 

treating the guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence. Id. We then consider the substantive reasonableness 

of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the 

circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. When reviewing a 

sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence within a 

properly-calculated guidelines range is reasonable. Rita v. 

3 
4 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 

(2007). 

 The record reveals that the district court applied the 

sentencing guidelines as advisory, considered the § 3553(a) 

factors, and sentenced Miller within his properly-calculated 

advisory guidelines range of 210-262 months of imprisonment. 

Under these circumstances, we find the sentence was reasonable. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, 

of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 

for further review. If the client requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on the client. 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