USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13247
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-00035-JB-B-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NICOLE MARIE MILLER,
a.k.a. Unique,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(May 24, 2021)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 2 of 8
Nicole Miller appeals her convictions by a jury and 120-month sentence for
possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and possessing a firearm in a school
zone. Miller makes two arguments on appeal. First, she says the government
presented insufficient evidence to establish that she actually possessed a firearm.
Second, she says her 120-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. After
careful consideration, we affirm Miller’s convictions and sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
Following a mistrial, Miller was charged in a second superseding indictment
with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (“Count 1”) and one count of possession of a firearm in a
school zone in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) (“Count 2”).
A. Trial
The case proceeded to a jury trial on the charges in the superseding
indictment. Several witnesses testified, but we recount only the testimony relevant
to this appeal. The government called Valerie James who testified that on
February 2, 2017, she and some friends met Miller in a parking lot to purchase
Xanax. After James realized the pills Miller gave her were not real, she took them
without paying and left in her car. Miller started to follow James in her own car
and the two pulled into the parking lot of a Subway. They got into an argument
and eventually James got back in the car and tried to pull out of her parking spot.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 3 of 8
Miller attempted to reach into James’s vehicle and in doing so dropped a cigar onto
James’s lap. James later provided the cigar to law enforcement. James believes
Miller fell to the ground as James pulled off. As James drove away, she heard
gunshots and her car was hit by gunfire. On cross-examination, James testified
that she lied to the police about what the fight between her and Miller was about
because she was on probation. James identified Miller in court.
Kim Barton also testified. She testified that on February 2, 2017, she picked
up her daughter from school to take her to an appointment. While she was stopped
at a traffic light she saw someone hop out of a car in the Subway parking lot, fall
on the ground, then jump up with a gun and start shooting. In court, Barton
identified Miller as the person she saw fire the gun. After her daughter’s
appointment, Barton returned to the scene where she gave police a description of
the shooter. She did not see Miller at this time, but she did see someone in the
back of a police car though she was not sure who it was. Barton testified that she
was not asked to identify anyone at the scene and was asked only for a description.
After the government rested its case, Miller moved for a judgment of
acquittal, which the district court denied. Miller renewed her motion after the
close of her evidence, which the court again denied. The jury found Miller guilty
on both counts.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 4 of 8
B. Sentencing
Pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(2), Miller’s
Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) assigned a base offense level of 24
because she possessed a firearm after having been convicted of at least two
felonies. Four points were added to the offense level under Guideline
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)1 because Miller possessed a firearm in connection with another
felony offense, which resulted in a total offense level of 28. With a criminal
history category of IV, her guideline range was 110 to 137 months’ imprisonment.
Prior to the sentencing hearing, Miller filed a sentencing memorandum. Her
memorandum explained that Miller had experienced severe childhood trauma and
abuse that continued to impact her. She asked the district court to consider her
history in this regard and impose a below-guidelines sentence. She further argued
that a below-guidelines sentence was warranted because she had been in custody
during the COVID-19 pandemic and had contracted COVID-19 while incarcerated.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that it had considered the
PSR, the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the parties’ arguments, as well
as the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the sentencing guidelines.
The court also said it had considered Miller’s personal history and characteristics
and the nature and circumstances of her offense. It expressed concern about her
1
The PSR mistakenly notes that the increase was pursuant to Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A).
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 5 of 8
prior felony convictions and the fact that one involved a firearm and the other
involved Xanax, both of which were again involved in the offense for which she
was now being sentenced. Given these considerations, the district court sentenced
Miller to 120 months’ imprisonment, with 110 months on Count 1 and 10 months
on Count 2 to be served consecutively. The court noted that this sentence
addressed the seriousness of the offense, the objectives of punishment, deterrence,
and incapacitation.
This is Miller’s appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Miller makes two arguments on appeal. First, she says there was insufficient
evidence to sustain a conviction under either 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) or 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(q)(2)(A). Second, she says her 120-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We address each in turn.
A. Sufficiency of Evidence
Miller argues the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain her convictions
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) or 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) because both offenses
require proof of possession and the government did not produce enough evidence
to establish that Miller possessed a firearm on February 2, 2017.
We review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and making all
5
USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 6 of 8
reasonable inferences and credibility determinations in favor of the jury’s verdict.
United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We
must affirm unless, “under no reasonable construction of the evidence,” could the
jury have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. “Credibility
determinations are left to the jury and the jury’s verdict will not be disturbed on
appeal unless the testimony is incredible as a matter of law.” United States v.
Flores, 572 F.3d 1254, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quotation marks
omitted).
The evidence here was sufficient for a jury to find Miller guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have
found that Miller possessed a firearm on the date in question. James testified that
after she and Miller got into an argument and she tried to drive away, Miller
reached into her car, fell, and then James began to hear gunshots and her car was
hit by gunfire. And Barton testified that she witnessed a woman fall, spring up,
then start shooting. Critically, Barton identified Miller as the shooter in court.
Although Miller argues Barton’s testimony is unreliable because she did not
identify Miller when she spoke to police officers at the scene, Barton testified that
she was not asked to provide an identification at that time. Nothing rendered
Barton’s testimony “incredible as a matter of law” and we conclude that was a
sufficient basis for the jury to believe Miller possessed a firearm. Flores, 572 F.3d
6
USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 7 of 8
at 1263 (quotation marks omitted). There was thus sufficient evidence to convict
Miller on both counts.
B. Reasonableness of Sentence
Miller argues her 120-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because
it is excessive based on the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically,
Miller says the district court should have given greater weight to her history and
characteristics in light of her severe childhood trauma and abuse.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We
vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable only if “we are left with the
definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies
outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks
omitted).
We are not left with that “definite and firm conviction” here. See id. The
district court did consider the factor emphasized by Miller (personal history and
characteristics) in addition to the other § 3553(a) factors. The court also expressed
concern about Miller’s prior felony convictions and the fact that one involved a
firearm and the other involved Xanax. The court ultimately decided that, given
7
USCA11 Case: 20-13247 Date Filed: 05/24/2021 Page: 8 of 8
these considerations, a midrange sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment was
appropriate. The district court explained that even though the evidence at trial
would justify a sentence at the high-end of the guidelines, it was not going to
impose a high-end sentence. We cannot say this constituted a “clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Therefore Miller’s midrange sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment is not
substantively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
8