Court Opinion

ID: 998260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:08:23.260743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:41.798828
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 98-4725

TRENTON MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-92-263-DWS)

Submitted: February 23, 1999

Decided: March 22, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,
Eric Wm. Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Trenton Miller appeals from the two-year sentence he received
after the district court revoked his term of supervised release. He
alleges that the court erred by imposing a sentence in excess of the
sentencing range set out by the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the
Sentencing Guidelines and that the court did not fully consider the
policy statements in determining his sentence.* Finding no error, we
affirm.

Miller was originally convicted of using or carrying a firearm dur-
ing and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, and his sentence
included a three-year term of supervised release. Shortly after begin-
ning his term of supervised release, Miller's probation officer filed a
petition to revoke his release, alleging that Miller had been arrested
and charged with receiving stolen property, lied to the probation offi-
cer about the negative results of a polygraph examination conducted
by his employer in connection with unrelated burglaries, and failed to
inform the probation officer that he had accepted employment at the
office complex where the burglaries occurred. After hearing testi-
mony and argument from counsel, the district court revoked Miller's
supervised release and sentenced him to the statutory maximum pen-
alty.

Chapter 7 policy statements "are now and always have been non-
binding, advisory guides to the district courts in supervised release
revocation proceedings." United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642
(4th Cir. 1995). Here, we find that the district court properly consid-
ered the guidelines and exercised its considerable discretion in impos-
ing a sentence in excess of the sentencing range set out in the Chapter
7 policy statements. Contrary to Miller's assertions, the record shows
that the district court imposed the maximum sentence because it
determined, after hearing all of the evidence, that Miller was unable
to adjust to supervised release; not because it was predisposed to do
so.
_________________________________________________________________

*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (1997).

                    2
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the material before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3