United States of America v. Rebecca Miller

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-1246
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rebecca Miller
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana
____________
Submitted: September 19, 2013
Filed: September 25, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After a jury found Rebecca Miller guilty of several drug charges, the district
court sentenced her to 188 months in prison. On appeal, we affirmed the convictions1
The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

but remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 707-10
(8th Cir. 2012). On remand, the district court imposed a sentence of 120 months in
prison. Miller appeals, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), counsel argues that the court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence.2
Miller has not filed a pro se brief.
After careful review, we affirm the sentence, because the district court
complied with our decision, see United States v. Kendall, 475 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th
Cir. 2007), and imposed a sentence that was stipulated to by both parties and that is
not unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc). Further, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
We decline to consider counsel’s argument that the district court also abused2
its discretion in failing to grant safety-valve relief. See United States v. Kress, 58
F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (where party could have raised issue in prior appeal but
did not, court later hearing same case need not consider matter).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --