Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sherri M. SOTHERLAND, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-09
Citations: 66 F. App'x 84
Docket Number: No. 03-1362
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sherri M. SOTHERLAND, Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 66
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sherri M. SOTHERLAND, Appellant.
No. 03-1362.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 3, 2003.
Decided June 9, 2003.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Sherri M. Sotherland pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court sentenced her to 10 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, and to pay restitution of $21,467.94. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the following issues: whether she was afforded her right of allocution, whether the restitution order was proper, and whether the district court should have departed downward.
These issues lack merit. The sentencing transcript shows that Sotherland was afforded her right of allocution, see United States v. Kaniss, 150 F.3d 967, 969 (8th Cir.1998); the district court properly established a payment schedule for the ordered restitution, cf United States v. McGlothlin, 249 F.3d 783, 784-85 (8th Cir. 2001) (remanding restitution order where sentencing court failed to establish schedule of restitution payments); and we do not review the district court's decision not to depart because there is no indication that it was unaware of its authority to do so, see United States v. Koans, 300 F.3d 985, 993-94 (8th Cir.2002).
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The HONORABLE GEORGE HOWARD, JR., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.