US v. Randall E. Hillian
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4453
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RANDALL EUGENE HILLIAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00041-WLO) Submitted: January 9, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ames C. Chamberlin, THE LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Randall following this Eugene Hillian remand appeals his sentence See imposed United
States v. Hillian, 210 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence is
In his pro se supplemental brief, Hillian joins his Hillian
counsel in arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.
additionally contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), as applied to him, is unconstitutional. responding brief. Initially, unreasonable. Hillian contends that his sentence is The Government elected not to file a
However, the district court appropriately treated
the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the advisory guideline range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d As Hillian's applicable advisory
540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
guideline range of 120 to 150 months was greater than the statutory maximum of 120 months' imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000), the court properly determined that the statutory maximum was the advisory guideline sentence. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(c)(1) (2003).
Thus, Hillian's 120-month
- 2 -
sentence is presumptively reasonable.
See United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007) (approving presumption of reasonableness accorded sentences within properly calculated guideline range). Hillian additionally contends that § 3553(a), as applied to him, is unconstitutional. because the factors lead He argues that "[t]his must be so, to nothing more than a guideline
However, the mere fact that Hillian received the guideline sentence does not render § 3553(a)
unconstitutional. found the
Rather, it reflects that the district court Commission's view of the appropriate
application of § 3553(a) factors suitable. no basis in the record to conclude that
Therefore, we discern the presumption of
reasonableness has been overcome. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Hillian's sentence. 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 this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
- 3 -
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 in the decisional process.
- 4 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?