United States of America v. Herbert Miller, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1231
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Herbert Miller, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 25-1233
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Herbert Miller, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: July 23, 2025
Filed: July 28, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, Herbert Miller, Jr., appeals the sentences the
district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a new drug offense pursuant to a
written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and upon the revocation of the
supervised release term he was serving for a prior firearm offense. His counsel has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the sentences as
procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable,
and enforceable against the sentence for the new offense. See United States v. Scott,
627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability
of an appeal waiver). The record reflects that Miller entered into the plea agreement
and appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcing the waiver will not result
in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th
Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing the enforceability of appeal waivers). We also
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation
sentence, as there is no indication that it failed to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, and the revocation
sentence was within the statutory maximum. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
1The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion review); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(maximum revocation prison term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony);
see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (district court may impose consecutive or concurrent
sentences).
For the new drug charge, we have independently reviewed the record and found
no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence in No. 25-1231, dismiss the
appeal in No. 25-1233, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --