United States v. Miller

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-6151 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 1, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-6151 (D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00043-HE-1) RONALD WAYNE MILLER, SR., (W.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Mr. Ronald Miller, Sr. was convicted of possessing

 methamphetamine with an intent to distribute and

 a firearm after a felony conviction.

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (methamphetamine), § 922(g)(1) (firearm). The

district court sentenced Mr. Miller to 284 months’ imprisonment and

* The parties haven’t requested oral argument, and it would not help us decide the appeal. So we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 24-6151 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 2

denied two later motions for a sentence reduction. See

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Mr. Miller appeals the second ruling. 1

In this appeal, we review the ruling for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Bradley, 97 F.4th 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2024). “A district court

abuses its discretion only where it (1) commits legal error, (2) relies on

clearly erroneous factual findings, or (3) where no rational basis exists in

the evidence to support its ruling.” United States v. Alfred, 982 F.3d 1273,

1279 (10th Cir. 2020).

Mr. Miller argues in part that the district court ruled too early

because he still had time to file a reply brief. But he hasn’t shown an abuse

of discretion. For example, he cites no authority for his right to file a reply

brief or say how he would have justified a different result through his

desired reply brief. See Walter v. Morton, 33 F.3d 1240, 1244

(10th Cir. 1994) (“We find neither prejudice . . . nor an abuse of the

district court’s discretion in ruling before the filing of a reply brief.”).

Mr. Miller also asserts that the district court didn’t consider the

entire record, apply the pertinent factors, consider his rehabilitation, or

properly consider the statutory sentencing factors. But “[a]t bottom, the

1 Mr. Miller filed the notice of appeal more than fourteen days after the district court had ruled. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (setting a fourteen-day deadline to file a notice of appeal). But the deadline for the notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 2011), and the government doesn’t raise timeliness of the notice of appeal.

2 Appellate Case: 24-6151 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2025 Page: 3

sentencing judge need only set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court

that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for

exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”

Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 113 (2018) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

The district court complied with these requirements by providing a

reasoned basis for the ruling, pointing to Mr. Miller’s lengthy criminal

history, his vaccinations for COVID-19, and his failure to show a medical

condition involving a risk beyond what someone would expect at a similar

age. Given this explanation, Mr. Miller needed to show a legal error or

clearly erroneous factual finding; and he failed to do so. See p. 2, above.

We thus affirm the denial of Mr. Miller’s motion for a sentence reduction.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge