U.S. v. Miner
| Decision Date | 17 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-1796.,08-1796. |
| Citation | 544 F.3d 930 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Melissa MINER, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Stanley A. Roush, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellant.
Charles J. Williams, AUSA, argued, Matthew J. Cole, AUSA, on the brief, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Melissa Miner pleaded guilty to felony criminal contempt of a lawful court order, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). She appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence.1 We affirm.
Miner was served with a subpoena on February 5, 2007, in United States v. Saddler. She appeared for a pretrial interview on February 22, 2007, and was scheduled to testify in federal court on March 6, 2007. When Miner failed to appear on the given day, the district court granted the government an overnight continuance to find her. A drug task force officer contacted Miner's mother, boyfriend, and employer, but was unable to locate her. The trial reconvened the next day, with the government completing its case and securing a conviction without the benefit of Miner's testimony.
Miner called the officer during the afternoon of March 7, 2007, telling him that she knew she was required to appear at the trial, but had stopped taking her medication, resumed using drugs, and "spaced off" her court appearance. Miner had personal knowledge of Saddler's unlawful activities, and her testimony was important to the government's case.
Miner was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of felony criminal contempt. In the memorandum of the proposed plea agreement, Miner acknowledged her understanding that the offense was punishable at the discretion of the district court and that she could be subjected to a term of incarceration in excess of one year, among other penalties. She further acknowledged that the district court would sentence her after considering several factors, including "the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense." The parties recommended a sentence of drug treatment, a weekend in jail, and a $500 fine.2
At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined that the guidelines range for Miner's offense was between six and twelve months, based on Miner's criminal history category VI, a base offense level of six, and a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The parties urged the district court to accept the sentence set forth in the plea agreement. Miner also requested a downward departure or variance, arguing that her criminal history category overstated the severity of her criminal behavior and thus resulted in an unreasonably harsh sentence. After weighing the section 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Miner to twelve months' imprisonment, a sentence Miner argues is unreasonable.
We review a sentence for reasonableness in light of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and we reverse only if the district court abused its discretion. Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-98, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir.2008). On appeal, we may presume a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S.A v. Anderson
...of discretion by the district court. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir.2008). In order to determine if there was an abuse of discretion, we consider if there was a “significant procedural error, ......
-
U.S. v. San–miguel
...unreasonable absent a showing of abuse of discretion by the district court. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir.2008). “A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor, gives significant weight to an irre......
-
U.S. v. Lovelace
...factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir.2008). At sentencing, the parties disputed the significance of a 1987 armed confrontation between Lovelace and Fargo police. Love......
- United States v. Scott
-
ON REASONABLENESS: THE MANY MEANINGS OF LAW'S MOST UBIQUITOUS CONCEPT.
...at 123. (74.) Id. at 123 n.5. (75.) 446 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2006). (76.) Id. at 889. (77.) 552 U.S. 38 (2007). (78.) Id. at 47-48. (79.) 544 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. (80.) Id. at 932. (81.) See id. (82.) FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c). (83.) FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f). (84.) See, e.g., Galvin v. U.S. Bank, 852 ......