United States v. Jarvis Miranda, No. 15-2354 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ January 05, 2016

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2354 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jarvis Miranda, also known as Crazy lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: December 31, 2015 Filed: January 6, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jarvis Miranda directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense and a felon-in-possession offense and the district court1 sentenced him to a 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. total of 293 months in prison, upon imposing two partially consecutive prison terms. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (if multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed at same time, terms may run concurrently or consecutively; as to each offense court shall consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.