Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01477/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01477-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jovan Miller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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

____________

Appellate Case: 15-1477 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Entry ID: 4301748 
 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[Unpublished]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 court imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in 1

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 proceduralsentencing 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 ofsupervised release is committed to district

court’s sound discretion). In addition, we have reviewed the record independently

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1477 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Entry ID: 4301748 
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-

Appellate Case: 15-1477 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Entry ID: 4301748