US v. Terrence McNeill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00031-BR-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999143844].. [12-4902]

Appeal: 12-4902

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4902

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRENCE MAURICE MCNEILL, a/k/a Lil’ Fred,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00031-BR-1)

Submitted:

April 22, 2013

Decided:

July 5, 2013

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey William Gillette, GILLETTE LAW FIRM, PLLC, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4902

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Terrence Maurice McNeill appeals the district court’s
amended judgment resentencing him to the mandatory minimum sixty
months
grams

in

prison

or

more

§ 841(a)(1)
pursuant

to

after

of

he

pled

cocaine

(2006).

base

McNeill’s

Anders

v.

guilty
in

to

distributing

violation

attorney

California,

has

386

of

21

filed

U.S.

fifty
U.S.C.

a

738

brief

(1967),

asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court’s
judgment was “unreasonable, imposing a sentence of 60 months to
run consecutively to Mr. McNeill’s sentence upon the revocation
of

his

supervised

release.”

McNeill

has

filed

a

pro

se

supplemental brief raising the additional issue of whether he
“should [have been] charge[d] for the actual amount” of cocaine
base rather than the total weight of the mixture.
We

review

discretion standard.

a

(2007).
that

under

a

deferential

abuse-of-

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

The first step in this review requires us to ensure

the

error,

sentence

We affirm.

district

such

as

court

committed

improperly

no

calculating

significant
the

procedural

Guidelines

range,

failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
procedurally

reasonable,

we

then
2

United States v.
If the sentence is

consider

the

substantive

Appeal: 12-4902

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/05/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality

of

the

circumstances.

Gall,

552

U.S.

at

51.

We

presume that a sentence within or below a properly calculated
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
Susi,

674

statutorily

F.3d

278,

required

289

(4th

sentence

is

Cir.
per

United States v.

2012).
se

Moreover,

reasonable.

a

United

States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

McNeill’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable,
and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in
sentencing him.

The district court did not err in finding that

McNeill was accountable for 54.7 grams of cocaine base.
Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 459 (1991).

See

To the

extent that McNeill seeks to challenge the drug quantity that he
was charged with distributing or his conviction, we conclude
that he has waived the right to raise this issue.

See United

States v. Pileggi, 703 F.3d 675, 680 (4th Cir. 2013); United
States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010); United
States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 644 (4th Cir. 2004).
We further conclude that the district court did not
err or abuse its discretion in denying McNeill’s request to run
his mandatory minimum sentence concurrently with his previous
sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release in
another criminal case based on the new criminal conduct to which
3

Appeal: 12-4902

Doc: 35

Filed: 07/05/2013

he pled guilty in this case.

Pg: 4 of 4

The district court recognized that

it had the authority to grant McNeill’s request, but reasonably
determined that it was not warranted in this case.

See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(c) & cmt. n.3(C) (2011);
United States v. Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 1996).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We deny McNeill’s motion for leave to file supplemental material
as an attachment to his brief.
This court requires that counsel inform his or her
client, in writing, of his or her 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
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4