United States v. Terrance Miller

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-2890, 25-2892
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2890 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Terrance Martice Miller

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 25-2892 ___________________________

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________

Submitted: April 22, 2026 Filed: April 27, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Terrance Martice Miller appeals after he pleaded guilty to escaping from federal custody, see 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and his supervised release for a prior offense was revoked for the third time. The district court1 sentenced him to 30 months in prison for the escape offense, consecutive to a 50- month sentence for the revocation. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the prison sentences.

After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, we conclude the sentences are not substantively unreasonable, either individually or in combination, as the record shows that the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining the standard of review). Miller’s disagreement with the weight the court gave to mitigating factors does not justify reversal. See United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2010). Further, the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b); United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2- affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw in both cases. ______________________________

-3-