Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shonda A. HOSKINS, also known as Shonda Ellison, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-04
Citations: 670 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 16-1972
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shonda A. HOSKINS, also known as Shonda Ellison, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shonda A. HOSKINS, also known as Shonda Ellison, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-1972
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 1, 2016
Filed: November 4, 2016
Alexander D. Morgan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Christopher R. Thyer, U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Eastern District of Arkansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shonda A. Hoskins, Pro Se.
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After pleading guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, Shonda Hos-kins appeals the district court's judgment imposing a sentence of 18 months and ordering $800,000 in restitution. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Hoskins should not be held responsible for the $800,000 in restitution, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Hoskins has filed a supplemental brief, which argues that the statute of limitations expired in the year she was indicted.
We find that Hoskins waived her arguments regarding the restitution amount and the statute of limitations, as she pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement which stipulated a minimum restitution amount of $800,000, see United States v. Soriano-Hernandez, 310 F.3d 1099, 1103-04 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that guilty plea waives statute-of-limitations defense); United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1996) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge it on appeal); and that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an 18-month prison term, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors). We have also independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues.
The judgment is affirmed, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and appellant's pending motion is denied.
. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.