United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2755

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Tania Henderson,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: March 25, 2014

Filed: April 4, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Tania Henderson directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after 1

she pled guilty to one count of theft of United States government money, i.e., federal

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.
income tax refunds to which she was not entitled, and four counts of identity theft. 

Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s application, at sentencing, of

U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) (vulnerable-victim enhancement). Henderson has filed a

pro se supplemental brief, challenging the district court’s applications of U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (number-of-victims enhancement), and U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I)

(amount-of-loss enhancement). 

To begin, we note that Henderson initially objected to the recommendations in

the presentence report (PSR) that the district court apply the vulnerable-victim

enhancement and the number-of-victims enhancement, but did not object to the 

recommendation that the court apply the amount-of-loss enhancement. At her

sentencing hearing, both through her counsel and in her own statements to the court,

she affirmatively withdrew her objection to the vulnerable-victim enhancement. The

court therefore did not address that issue, but did carefully consider all the issuesthat

were properly raised, and thoroughly explained its sentencing decision.

Turning to the issues raised on appeal, we first decline to consider the

challenge to the vulnerable-victimenhancement, becauseHenderson waived it below. 

See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (waiver is intentional

relinquishment or abandonment of known right and results in issue being

unreviewable on appeal); United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir.

2002) (where lawyer who represented defendant in district court withdrew

defendant’s objections to presentence report, defendant was precluded from arguing

those objections on appeal). As to the number-of-victims enhancement, we conclude,

upon careful review of the PSR and the transcript of Henderson’s sentencing hearing,

that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Henderson’s offense involved

at least 250 victims. See United States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967, 969 (8th Cir. 2007) (in

reviewing application of number-of-victims enhancement, appellate court reviews

district court’s interpretation and application of Guidelines de novo and its findings

-2-
of fact for clear error). As to the amount-of-loss enhancement, we find no plain error. 

See United States v. Pazour, 609 F.3d 950, 951 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (when

defendant does not object to enhancement, court reviews its application for plain

error).

Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm

the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject

to counsel informing Henderson about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a

petition for certiorari.

__________________________

-3-