United States v. Terry Miller, No. 20-1703 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for First Step Act relief; the court's ruling did not deny defendant due process or violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.6
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1703 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Terry Markey Miller lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: October 28, 2020 Filed: November 2, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Terry Miller appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motions for relief under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA). See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The district court determined Miller was eligible for relief under the FSA, but declined to reduce his sentence. In exercising its discretion to deny relief, the district court considered the factors on which it based Miller’s original sentence and concluded they outweighed Miller’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of relief. See United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). We also conclude there is no merit to Miller’s arguments the district court’s ruling denied him due process or violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Schropp, 829 F.3d 998, 1003 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Essentially, the Double Jeopardy Clause ‘protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.’”); cf. United States v. Booker, 974 F.3d 869, 872 (8th Cir. 2020) (holding defendant received due process during sentence-reduction proceedings under FSA where motion came before same judge who imposed original sentence, notice was given of the sentencing court’s anticipated ruling with opportunity to respond, and the sentencing court adequately explained the basis for its decision). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
