United States v. Olin Millen, No. 16-4463 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Any error in assessment of criminal history points was harmless as it did not affect defendant's criminal history category or his guidelines range; the sentence imposed was not an abuse of the district court's discretion. [ July 14, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4463 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Olin Millen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: July 7, 2017 Filed: July 17, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Olin Millen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Millen’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s determination of Millen’s criminal history score and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We need not reach the merits of Millen’s argument regarding his criminal history score because any error in assessing two points, instead of one point, for the conviction at issue was harmless. See U.S.S.G. § 5 Sentencing Table; United States v. Gutierrez, 437 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2006) (even if inclusion of two additional criminal history points was error, any such error was harmless because it did not affect defendant’s criminal history category and did not alter Guidelines range). Further, after thorough review, we conclude that the district court’s carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
