Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01368/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01368-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick A. Miller
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1368

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Derrick A. Miller, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 26, 2007 

Filed: January 17, 2008

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Miller (Miller) appeals the 51-month imprisonment the district court1

imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Miller’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and seeks permission to withdraw. Miller’s

counsel raises as possible issues the unreasonableness of Miller’s sentence and

ineffective assistance of counsel. In a pro se supplemental brief, Miller also argues

Appellate Case: 07-1368 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2008 Entry ID: 3392679
-2-

ineffective assistance of counsel, stating his counsel failed to raise possible grounds

for departure at sentencing.

We decline to address Miller’s ineffective-assistance arguments on direct

appeal, as his claims should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United

States v. Harris, 310 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (8th Cir. 2002) (explaining ineffectiveassistance claims generally should be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because they

normally require development of facts outside the record). 

We conclude Miller’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable,

because there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in

weighing appropriate factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th

Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review; discussing circumstances in which abuse of

discretion may occur); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007)

(allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines-range

sentences); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1113-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (applying

presumption). The district court did not abuse its discretion.

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and

we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1368 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2008 Entry ID: 3392679