United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1450
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jovan Miller
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 15-1477
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jovan Miller
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: August 3, 2015
Filed: August 3, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Jovan Miller challenges the below-Guidelines-
range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, and he challenges the consecutive sentence the district court
imposed upon revoking his prior supervised release. Miller’s counsel has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved for leave to
withdraw. Miller has filed a supplemental brief, and has moved for appointment of
new counsel. In his supplemental brief, Miller argues that the district court
committed a procedural sentencing error.
Upon careful review, we conclude that no procedural sentencing error occurred
and that neither sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing
decisions); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (where
district court has varied downward, “it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused
its discretion in not varying downward still further”); United States v. Miller, 557
F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (this court reviews revocation sentence using same
standards it applies when reviewing initial sentence; decision to impose consecutive
or concurrent sentence upon revocation of supervised release is committed to district
court’s sound discretion). In addition, we have reviewed the record independently
1
The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-
under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues
for appeal. Accordingly, in each of these consolidated appeals, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, we deny Miller’s motion for appointment of new counsel, and
we affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-3-