United States v. Rebecca Miller, No. 13-1246 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. For the court's prior opinion in the matter see U.S. v. Miller , 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012). On remand, the district court complied with this court's decision and imposed a sentence that was stipulated to by both parties and was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1246 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rebecca Miller lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: September 19, 2013 Filed: September 25, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After a jury found Rebecca Miller guilty of several drug charges, the district court sentenced her to 188 months in prison. On appeal, we affirmed the convictions 1 1 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. but remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 707-10 (8th Cir. 2012). On remand, the district court imposed a sentence of 120 months in prison. Miller appeals, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence.2 Miller has not filed a pro se brief. After careful review, we affirm the sentence, because the district court complied with our decision, see United States v. Kendall, 475 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2007), and imposed a sentence that was stipulated to by both parties and that is not unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Further, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 2 We decline to consider counsel s argument that the district court also abused its discretion in failing to grant safety-valve relief. See United States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (where party could have raised issue in prior appeal but did not, court later hearing same case need not consider matter). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
