UNITED STATES v. MCMILLAN (2018)

[Unpublished]

Ryan McMillan directly appeals after the district court ¹ resentenced him and imposed an above-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has filed briefs arguing that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.² Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is also pending.

After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s decision to vary upward where district court emphasized, inter alia, defendant’s criminal history). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2.   Counsel initially filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After this court conducted an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and ordered additional briefing, the parties filed supplemental briefs.

PER CURIAM.