United States v. Adrian Milligan ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2480
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Adrian D. Milligan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: December 14, 2023
Filed: December 19, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Adrian Milligan appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 following
resentencing on his conviction for a firearm offense. His counsel has moved for leave
1
The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court correctly calculated
Milligan’s offense level. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir.
2015) (construction and application of Guidelines are reviewed de novo).
Specifically, the record supported the enhancement for possessing a stolen firearm.
See United States v. Pazour, 609 F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 2010) (for the purposes of
the Guidelines, “stolen” includes all felonious or wrongful takings with the intent to
deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership, regardless of whether or
not the theft constitutes common law larceny). We also conclude that the district
court did not err by failing to order a new presentence report (PSR) for resentencing.
See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1234 (2d Cir. 2002) (updated PSR is
not required for resentencing where parties are given full opportunity to be heard and
to supplement PSR as needed).
We further conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under
deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails
to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,
or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). The record
establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir.
2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-