United States of America v. Terrance Martice Miller

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2890
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terrance Martice Miller
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 25-2892
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terrance Martice Miller
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: April 22, 2026
Filed: April 27, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, Terrance Martice Miller appeals after he pleaded
guilty to escaping from federal custody, see 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and his supervised
release for a prior offense was revoked for the third time. The district court1
sentenced him to 30 months in prison for the escape offense, consecutive to a 50-
month sentence for the revocation. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive
reasonableness of the prison sentences.
After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, we
conclude the sentences are not substantively unreasonable, either individually or in
combination, as the record shows that the district court considered the statutory
sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to
an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing
relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
910, 915-16, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining the standard of review). Miller’s
disagreement with the weight the court gave to mitigating factors does not justify
reversal. See United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2010).
Further, the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences. See
18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b); United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir.
2020); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw in
both cases.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --