United States v. Jovan Miller, No. 15-1477 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. No procedural error occurred in either of defendant's sentencings and the sentences imposed - for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for violating his supervised release - were substantively reasonable. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1450 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jovan Miller lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 15-1477 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jovan Miller lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: August 3, 2015 Filed: August 3, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Jovan Miller challenges the below-Guidelinesrange sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and he challenges the consecutive sentence the district court imposed upon revoking his prior supervised release. Miller’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved for leave to withdraw. Miller has filed a supplemental brief, and has moved for appointment of new counsel. In his supplemental brief, Miller argues that the district court committed a procedural sentencing error. Upon careful review, we conclude that no procedural sentencing error occurred and that neither sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court has varied downward, “it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further”); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (this court reviews revocation sentence using same standards it applies when reviewing initial sentence; decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentence upon revocation of supervised release is committed to district court’s sound discretion). In addition, we have reviewed the record independently 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, in each of these consolidated appeals, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, we deny Miller’s motion for appointment of new counsel, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -3-
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.
