United States v. Ryan McMillan, No. 18-1248 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1248 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Ryan William McMillan lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: September 28, 2018 Filed: October 15, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ryan McMillan directly appeals after the district court1 resentenced him and imposed an above-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has filed briefs arguing 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.2 Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is also pending. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s decision to vary upward where district court emphasized, inter alia, defendant’s criminal history). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 2 Counsel initially filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). After this court conducted an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and ordered additional briefing, the parties filed supplemental briefs. -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.
