Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03286/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03286-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry K. Miller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3286

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

 Larry K. Miller, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2007

 Filed: January 29, 2007 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 sentenced Larry K. Miller to a 108-month sentence after he

pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing methamphetamine. We affirm.

Miller argues his Fifth and Sixth amendment rights were violated by an

unreasonably long sentence, the plea agreement was “illusory” for lack of

consideration and, in the alternative, the government breached the agreement when it

requested his sentence be enhanced based on his relevant conduct.

Appellate Case: 06-3286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2007 Entry ID: 3272332
-2-

A two-stage standard of review applies to sentences imposed by district courts.

In the first step we review the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines

de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Then the sentence is reviewed for

reasonableness based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Wallace, 413

F.3d 734, 743 (8th Cir. 2005). The review for reasonableness under United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is akin to abuse of discretion review. United States v.

Rogers, 423 F.3d 823, 829 (8th Cir. 2005). A district court’s relevant-conduct

findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Ault, 446 F.3d 821, 823 (8th

Cir. 2006). 

Miller argues courts are required to use the “beyond a reasonable doubt”

standard to determine any facts during the sentencing phase of the trial. This is simply

not the case; we have held due process is satisfied when sentencing facts are found by

a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Okai, 454 F.3d 848, 851 (8th Cir.

2006). 

Miller claims his sentence is unreasonable within the meaning of Booker

because the district court failed to consider the factors set forth in § 3553(a) to

determine whether to impose sentence under the guidelines or a non-guideline

sentence. This cannot be supported by the record in this case. The district court

specifically noted that the sentence imposed addressed objectives of just punishment,

deterrence, and incapacitation – all § 3553(a) objectives. Moreover, we have made

it clear nothing in § 3553(a) or in the Booker remedy opinion requires robotic

incantations that each statutory factor has been considered. United States v.

Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Miller’s argument about his plea agreement being illusory also fails. The

government’s promise not to seek any further charges against Miller arising from the

underlying facts represents far more than a peppercorn of consideration to Miller.

Appellate Case: 06-3286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2007 Entry ID: 3272332
-3-

Likewise, nothing in the plea agreement forbade the government from presenting

additional evidence at the sentencing hearing. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3286 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2007 Entry ID: 3272332