United States v. Kelvin Miller , 358 F. App'x 750 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3917
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,      * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                               * Eastern District of Missouri.
    *
    Kelvin Miller,                         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Defendant - Appellant.     *
    ___________
    Submitted: September 25, 2009
    Filed: December 7, 2009
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Kelvin Miller appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) on the grounds that: (1) there was insufficient
    evidence to sustain his conviction; (2) the district court1 improperly applied sentence
    enhancements under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) §§ 3C1.1 and
    3C1.2; (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for a downward departure or
    variance; and (4) the district court failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. §
    3553(a) factors. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, see United
    States v. Urick, 
    431 F.3d 300
    , 303 (8th Cir. 2005), we conclude the evidence is
    sufficient to show Miller possessed a firearm. Two police officers testified they
    observed Miller carrying a weapon as he ran through a St. Louis residential
    neighborhood. One of the officers testified that Miller pointed that weapon at him
    during the chase. An officer also testified that after Miller was arrested, he admitted
    to throwing this weapon in a nearby backyard. Officers subsequently found the
    weapon in that location. This evidence is sufficient to sustain Miller’s conviction for
    being a felon in possession of a firearm.
    We also conclude the district court properly imposed an obstruction of justice
    enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1 based on Miller’s repeated denials at trial that he
    possessed a weapon. See United States v. Flores, 
    362 F.3d 1030
    , 1037 (8th Cir. 2004)
    (“Committing perjury at trial constitutes an obstruction of justice within the meaning
    of § 3C1.1.”). The record also indicates that the district court applied the
    enhancement only after conducting its own independent evaluation of all the evidence.
    See United States v. Kessler, 
    321 F.3d 699
    , 703 (8th Cir. 2003). That evidence
    strongly showed that Miller lied while on the witness stand when he denied possessing
    the weapon, and the district court did not err in enhancing his sentence.
    Similarly, evidence supports the district court’s imposition of a sentence
    enhancement for creating a risk of death or injury during flight under USSG § 3C1.2.
    Miller admitted he fled from police, jumped out of a moving vehicle which later
    struck a parked car, led police officers on a foot chase through a residential
    neighborhood, and persistently disregarded officers’ commands to stop. The record
    also shows that Miller carried a loaded weapon during the chase and pointed it at a
    police officer, which resulted in the officer shooting Miller. This factual background
    justifies the enhancement for reckless endangerment under USSG § 3C1.2. See
    United States v. Bates, 
    561 F.3d 754
    , 757 (8th Cir. 2009).
    -2-
    The district court also did not err in denying Miller’s request for a downward
    departure from the guideline sentence based on Miller’s claims of diminished capacity
    and mental health problems. After reviewing the sentencing record, it is evident that
    the district court considered Miller’s request, but concluded the guideline sentence
    was appropriate and Miller had not established his case was sufficiently atypical to
    warrant a lesser sentence. See United States v. Lee, 
    553 F.3d 598
    , 601 (8th Cir.
    2009).
    Finally, the district court did not err in imposing a guideline sentence rather
    than one pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have carefully reviewed the record and
    conclude the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse
    its discretion in sentencing Miller to 96 months’ imprisonment.
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-