Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Miller, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views2 pages
    William Patrick Miller appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also rejected Miller's new claim that he was entitled to a new trial on drug quantity in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, as Miller received a sentence of 235 months which was below the 20-year statutory maximum for drug offenses when quantity is not charged or found by a jury. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling and dismissed Miller's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6493

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    William Patrick Miller appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also rejected Miller's new claim that he was entitled to a new trial on drug quantity in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, as Miller received a sentence of 235 months which was below the 20-year statutory maximum for drug offenses when quantity is not charged or found by a jury. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling and dismissed Miller's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    17 views2 pages

    United States v. Miller, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Patrick Miller appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also rejected Miller's new claim that he was entitled to a new trial on drug quantity in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, as Miller received a sentence of 235 months which was below the 20-year statutory maximum for drug offenses when quantity is not charged or found by a jury. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling and dismissed Miller's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6493

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM PATRICK MILLER, a/k/a Scoop,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-98-7-MU)

    Submitted:

    June 12, 2001

    Decided:

    June 21, 2001

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    William Patrick Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    William Patrick Miller appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, in which he
    sought a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.

    We have

    reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find no
    abuse of discretion. United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th
    Cir. 1993) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court.

    United States v. Miller, No.

    CR-98-7-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 15, 2001; entered Feb. 16, 2001).
    Miller also asserts for the first time on appeal that he is
    entitled to a new trial on drug quantity in light of the Supreme
    Courts decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
    We reject his claim because there is no error, plain or otherwise,
    given that Miller received a 235-month sentence. See United States
    v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 542 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that statutory
    maximum is twenty years when drug quantity is not charged as element of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt), cert.
    denied,
    9732).

    U.S.

    , 2001 WL 487738 (U.S. June 4, 2001) (No. 00-

    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 the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like