United States v. Tyrone Miller, 900 F.3d 509

Police found Tyrone Miller unconscious after his car struck a street light; officers handcuffed him, placed him in the back of a patrol car, and later observed a loaded handgun with an extended magazine on the floor where his feet had been.
At trial the sole contested issue was possession; an officer testified the patrol car’s back seat had been inspected at shift start and no one else used the car that shift; jury convicted Miller under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The presentence report listed 11 adult convictions (5 felonies) and 17 criminal-history points; one Michigan 2011 offense characterized in the report as “possession of loaded firearm in or upon a vehicle” was actually a misdemeanor under Michigan law.
The government and the district court mistakenly treated Miller as having six prior felonies (making the instant offense his seventh); the judge repeatedly referenced a "seventh felony" and said Miller would be in a hypothetical criminal-history Category VIII.
Miller received an 87-month sentence (top of the Guidelines range); he appealed contesting sufficiency of the evidence and arguing sentencing relied on inaccurate criminal-history information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Miller possessed the gun	Miller: evidence insufficient; officer testimony unreliable; no full pat-down	Government: officer’s testimony and video made it reasonable to conclude Miller brought a hidden gun into the car	Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, jurors could find possession beyond a reasonable doubt (plain-error review)
Procedural error at sentencing based on inaccurate criminal-history count	Miller: judge relied on incorrect statement that this was his seventh felony, violating due process and requiring resentencing	Government: Miller forfeited objections by not correcting judge; error harmless because Guidelines range unchanged and other §3553(a) factors support sentence	Vacated sentence and remanded — judge explicitly relied on the erroneous felony count as a major sentencing factor, requiring resentencing (de novo review preserved for the miscount issue)

United States v. Wrobel, 841 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2016) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sufficiency-of-evidence claims)
United States v. Hunter, 145 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 1998) (credibility findings are set aside only if testimony is impossible under natural laws)
United States v. Sewell, 780 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence for possession)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain-error prejudice standard)
United States v. Welch, 738 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1984) (requiring remand where sentencing court relied on misinformation)
Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (remand required when sentencing based on inaccurate information)
Oliver v. United States, 873 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2017) (due-process right to sentencing based on accurate information)
United States v. Barnes, 907 F.2d 693 (7th Cir. 1990) (low standard for showing reliance on improper information)
United States v. Chatman, 805 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2015) (forfeiture and plain-error framework for sentencing challenges)
United States v. England, 555 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand where court relied on misinformation in assessing §3553 factors)