US v. Danny McCollum

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00432-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999794255]. [15-4441]

Appeal: 15-4441

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANNY LEE MCCOLLUM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00432-WO-1)

Submitted:

March 30, 2016

Decided:

April 13, 2016

Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4441

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Danny Lee McCollum pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to one count of distribution of cocaine base.

The

district court sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be
followed

by

years

of

counsel

McCollum’s

four

has

filed

California,

386

meritorious

grounds

district

court

U.S.

738

a

brief

(1967),

for

imposed

supervised

appeal
a

release.
pursuant

stating

but

reasonable

On
to

that

Anders

there

questioning

appeal,

are

v.
no
the

McCollum

sentence.

whether

was

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
district

court

made

no

significant

procedural

error

The
at

sentencing, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007),
and McCollum has not rebutted the presumption on appeal that his
within-Guidelines

sentence

is

substantively

reasonable,

see

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied,

135

S.

Ct.

421

(2014).

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district court’s judgment.
This
writing,

court
of

the

requires

that

right

petition

to

United States for further review.

counsel
the

inform
Supreme

McCollum,
Court

of

in
the

If McCollum requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
2

Appeal: 15-4441

Doc: 26

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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 McCollum.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3