United States of America v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 4th Cir. 1993 stating standard of review . Accordingly, we…

UNPUBLISHED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 Dis-
trict 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William Patrick Miller appeals the district court’s 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 court’s 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
Court’s 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 ele-
ment of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt), cert.
denied, U.S. , 2001 WL 487738 (U.S. June 4, 2001) (No. 00-
9732). 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

-- 2 of 2 --