United States of America v. Ryan William McMillan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1248
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ryan William McMillan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: September 28, 2018
Filed: October 15, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ryan McMillan directly appeals after the district court resentenced him and1
imposed an above-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has filed briefs arguing
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District1
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

that the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Counsel’s motion2
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.
______________________________
Counsel initially filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).2
After this court conducted an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), and ordered additional briefing, the parties filed supplemental briefs.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --