Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01260/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric V. Miller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Battalion, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1260

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Eric V. Miller, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2007

Filed: November 30, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Miller challenges the reasonableness of the 188-month prison sentence

imposed by the district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to

distribute in excess of 5 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

For reversal, Miller argues the district court erred by giving determinate weight to the

advisory Guidelines without considering and appropriately weighing the other factors

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which favored a lower sentence.

Appellate Case: 07-1260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2007 Entry ID: 3377550
-2-

At sentencing, Miller moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3,

arguing that his career offender status overstated his criminal history. The district

court denied Miller’s motion upon finding that such a departure was unjustified, and

this clearly discretionary decision is unreviewable on appeal. See United States v.

Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 875 (8th Cir. 2005).

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

sentencing Miller at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, see United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review), because Miller has

not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded to within-Guidelines-range

sentences by showing that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment, see

Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate

presumption of reasonableness for sentences within Guidelines range); United States

v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant bears burden to rebut

presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines-range sentence); Haack, 403

F.3d at 1004 (standard for abuse of discretion).

Finally, our review of the record convinces us that the district court adequately

considered and appropriately weighed the section 3553(a) factors without viewing the

Guidelines as determinative. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2469

(district court’s sentencing analysis was legally sufficient when record showed that

court listened to each argument and considered evidence in support of sentence below

advisory Guidelines range, even though court did not elaborate on its reasons); United

States v. Dieken, 432 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir.) (in performing its analysis under

§ 3553(a), district court was not required to recite statute or “categorically rehearse”

each factor), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 163 (2006).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2007 Entry ID: 3377550