Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02185/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02185-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keri Kopriva
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2185

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Keri Kopriva

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: December 17, 2024

Filed: January 8, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Keri Kopriva appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed

after she pled guilty to wire fraud. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 24-2185 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2025 Entry ID: 5472982
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing her

sentence was substantively unreasonable and the district court erred in not accounting

for the time Kopriva previously spent in a residential reentry center pursuant to the

terms of her state probation.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Kopriva, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a

clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; the sentence was within the

advisory Guidelines range; and the district court considered the state sentence on the

record and determined that a downward variance was not warranted. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review);

United States v. Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has

wide latitude in weighing relevant factors); United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932

(8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may presume sentence within properly calculated

guidelines range is reasonable).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 24-2185 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2025 Entry ID: 5472982