United States of America v. Amondo Antoine Miller

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3166
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Amondo Antoine Miller
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: August 26, 2025
Filed: August 29, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Amondo Miller, who was counseled below but is now proceeding pro se,
appeals after a jury convicted him of fraud, and the district court1 sentenced him to
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 3 --

96 months in prison. On appeal, Miller challenges the indictment, his conviction, and
his sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that any potential error in the grand jury
proceedings was rendered harmless by the jury verdict. See United States v.
Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539, 559 (8th Cir. 2012) (even assuming that there were
errors in the charging decision that may have followed from the conduct of the
prosecution, the petit jury’s guilty verdict rendered those errors harmless).
We also conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support
Miller’s convictions. See United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir.
2007) (sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction is reviewed de novo).
Specifically, the government presented adequate evidence that Miller’s company,
Magazine Solutions, used a fraudulent sales pitch to deceive victims into unwittingly
signing up for unwanted magazine subscriptions, and that Miller assisted other
companies using the same scheme by supplying them with victims’ personal
information. See United States v. Spears, 454 F.3d 830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006)
(appellate court does not weigh evidence or assess credibility of witnesses; examining
evidence in light most favorable to verdict and accepting all reasonable inferences
which tend to support jury verdict; appellate court will reverse only if no reasonable
jury could have found defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining the loss
amount, see United States v. Bradford, 113 F.4th 1019, 1025-26 (8th Cir. 2024)
(factual findings are reviewed for clear error; district court at sentencing need only
make a reasonable estimate of the loss); or in sentencing Miller, as it considered the
factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and specifically noted the distinctions between
Miller and his codefendants, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,
or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States
v. Dickson, 127 F.4th 722, 730 (8th Cir. 2025) (statutory directive to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have
been found guilty of similar conduct refers to national disparities, not differences
among co-conspirators; it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to impose
a sentence that results in a disparity between codefendants when there are legitimate
distinctions between the codefendants).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --