United States v. Deandre Miller, No. 18-1943 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in determining defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by committing an assault; sentence imposed was not an abuse of the district court's discretion or substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1943 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Deandre Terrell Miller lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: March 7, 2019 Filed: March 13, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Deandre Terrell Miller appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 60-month prison sentence followed by 30 months of supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has submitted a brief asserting the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he violated his release conditions by committing an assault, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Miller committed an assault. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Miller, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012); and the sentence was within the Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), (h); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
