Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03500/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03500-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sarah Jean Beranek
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3500

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Sarah Jean Beranek,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: April 8, 2015

 Filed: April 15, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Sarah Beranek pleaded guiltyto drug offenses, the district court imposed

1

consecutive sentences totaling 109 months in prison and three years of supervised

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-3500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Entry ID: 4265471 
release, after granting the government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure motion, reducing

the Guidelines range by 10%, and sentencing Beranek at the top of the reduced range. 

Beranek appeals. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence is

unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See

United States v. Montgomery, 525 F.3d 627, 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). 

The district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, permissibly

granted the downward departure, and properly considered and weighed relevant

sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Although the

sentence falls within the Guidelines range calculated before accounting for the

substantial-assistance reduction, the sentence also falls within the Guidelines range

reduced by 10%. Further, the court pointed out that it had granted a 12-month

reduction,indicating that withoutthe substantial-assistance reduction, Beranek would

have received a 121-month prison sentence. See United States v. Deering, 762 F.3d

783, 786 (8th Cir. 2014). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to

withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994

Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964. 

We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to

counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Entry ID: 4265471 
Judge Colloton would grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States

v. Eredia, 578 Fed. Appx. 620, 621 (8th Cir. 2014) (Colloton, J., concurring in part

and dissenting in part).

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3500 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Entry ID: 4265471