United States v. Terry Miller ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-1703
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Terry Markey Miller
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
    ____________
    Submitted: October 28, 2020
    Filed: November 2, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Terry Miller appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motions for relief
    under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA). See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 
    132 Stat. 5194
    .
    1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    The district court determined Miller was eligible for relief under the FSA, but
    declined to reduce his sentence.
    In exercising its discretion to deny relief, the district court considered the
    factors on which it based Miller’s original sentence and concluded they outweighed
    Miller’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. We find no abuse of discretion
    in the court’s denial of relief. See United States v. McDonald, 
    944 F.3d 769
    , 771 (8th
    Cir. 2019) (standard of review). We also conclude there is no merit to Miller’s
    arguments the district court’s ruling denied him due process or violated the Double
    Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Schropp, 
    829 F.3d 998
    , 1003 (8th Cir. 2016)
    (“Essentially, the Double Jeopardy Clause ‘protects against multiple punishments for
    the same offense.’”); cf. United States v. Booker, 
    974 F.3d 869
    , 872 (8th Cir. 2020)
    (holding defendant received due process during sentence-reduction proceedings under
    FSA where motion came before same judge who imposed original sentence, notice
    was given of the sentencing court’s anticipated ruling with opportunity to respond,
    and the sentencing court adequately explained the basis for its decision).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel’s
    motion for leave to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1703

Filed Date: 11/2/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2020