United States v. Rickey Lee Miller, Jr.

── United States v. Rickey Lee Miller, Jr. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10471 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10471 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RICKEY LEE MILLER, JR., Defendant- Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cr-00103-TPB-PRL-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Rickey Lee Miller, Jr. appeals his 180-month sentence, im- posed following his guilty plea to attempted coercion and entice- ment of a minor to engage in sexual activity. On appeal, he argues USCA11 Case: 25-10471 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10471 that: (1) the district court procedurally erred by failing to expressly acknowledge the Sentencing Guideline range that would have ap- plied, absent the statutory minimum; and (2) his sentence is sub- stantively unreasonable because the court imposed an upward var- iance exceeding the government’s recommendation and failed to afford weight to the Guidelines. After careful review, we affirm. I. We review the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Ordinarily, we review a district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual find- ings for clear error. United States v. Isaac, 987 F.3d 980, 990 (11th Cir. 2021). However, if a party does not raise a procedural error in the district court, we review only for plain error. United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010). To establish plain er- ror, the defendant must show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). If the defendant satisfies these condi- tions, we may exercise our discretion to recognize the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of ju- dicial proceedings. Id. For the error to have affected substantial rights, it must have affected the outcome of the case. Id. II. First, we are unpersuaded by Miller’s claim that the district court plainly erred by imposing a procedurally unreasonable sen- USCA11 Case: 25-10471 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-10471 Opinion of the Court 3 tence. Procedural errors include “failing to calculate (or improp- erly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sen- tence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately ex- plain the chosen sentence -- including an explanation for any devi- ation from the Guidelines range.’” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 1 The dis- trict court is not required to state on the record that it explicitly co