Miller appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to one count of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor. The district court in the Middle District of Florida imposed the 180-month term, which exceeded the statutory minimum of 120 months and the government’s recommended sentence of 168 months.
The underlying facts involved Miller instructing an undercover agent, whom he believed to be a minor, to lie to a companion during an alleged meetup. The companion was Miller’s stepdaughter, the mother of his two children, and was no longer a minor. The government noted that the stepdaughter had recently given birth and was still healing.
Prosecutors argued that if Miller’s plan had succeeded, he would have induced his stepdaughter to unknowingly abuse a minor. The district court characterized Miller as a child molester and emphasized the need to protect the public from his illegal behavior for a substantial amount of time.
On appeal, Miller argued that the district court plainly erred by not explicitly stating the initial guideline range of 87 to 108 months, which was supplanted by the statutory minimum of 120 months. The Eleventh Circuit held that Miller failed to show plain error because no case law requires a court to pronounce a supplanted guideline range.
The appellate court noted that both defense counsel and the presentence investigation report provided the range, and the district court stated it was considering the report and counsel’s arguments. The Statement of Reasons filed with the Judgment also provided the correct guideline range, demonstrating the court’s awareness of it.
Miller also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing the court failed to afford weight to the Guidelines. The Eleventh Circuit applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and found no clear error of judgment. The court observed that the 180-month sentence was well below the statutory maximum of life imprisonment.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court had discretion to weigh Miller’s danger to the public and the egregious nature of the crime more heavily than other factors. The court concluded that the district court provided a reasoned basis for its chosen sentence and adequately considered the parties’ arguments.