UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4567

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL WAYNE MILAM, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00161-NCT-2)

Submitted: June 15, 2011 Decided: June 24, 2011

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher R. Pudelski, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER PUDELSKI, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States 

Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wayne Milam, Jr. pled guilty, pursuant to a 

plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Milam was sentenced 

to 110 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting 

that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Counsel questioned whether Milam received effective 

assistance of counsel, but concludes that counsel’s 

ineffectiveness is not conclusively established by the record 

before the court, and such a claim is better suited for a 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) proceeding.∗

Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness is conclusively 

apparent on the face of the record, ineffective assistance 

claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal. United 

 Upon review of 

the record, we directed supplemental briefing from the parties 

on whether the district court committed error by applying the 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2009) 

enhancement in light of United States v. Blount, 337 F.3d 404 

(4th Cir. 2003); and, if so, whether that error was plain. We 

affirm.

 ∗ Milam was informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but has not done so. 
3

States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008); United 

States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999) 

(providing standard and noting that ineffective assistance of 

counsel claims generally should be raised by motion under 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)). Because we find no 

conclusive evidence on the record that counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance, we decline to consider this claim on 

direct appeal. 

We review Milam’s sentence using an abuse of 

discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2008). The first step in this review requires us to 

ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 

(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range or 

failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The district court must make an 

individualized assessment based on the facts presented by 

applying the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the circumstances of 

the case. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We then consider the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account 

the totality of the circumstances. Id.
4

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the 

district court did not procedurally err in sentencing Milam. We 

find no error in the imposition of the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement to Milam’s 

offense level, and conclude that the district court’s 

calculation of Milam’s Guidelines range was correct. 

We also conclude that Milam’s sentence is not 

substantively unreasonable. A sentence within the properly 

calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United 

States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). The

110-month sentence is within the properly calculated Guidelines 

range, and Milam has failed to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness accorded that sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that 

counsel inform Milam, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Milam

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 Milam. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
5

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED