Court Opinion

ID: 9386455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 16:00:41.910079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.657633
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3585
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   Shanan Smith,

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                       ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: April 6, 2023
                              Filed: April 12, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Shanan Smith appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after she
pleaded guilty to wire fraud. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

      1
      The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Court Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of
the sentence. In a pro se brief, Smith challenges the restitution order.

       We conclude that Smith waived any challenge to the reasonableness of the
sentence, as she received the sentence her counsel specifically requested. See United
States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002). As to Smith’s pro se
argument that the restitution amount was inaccurate, we conclude that she waived the
point by withdrawing her objections to the loss amounts in the presentence report and
asking the district court to order $51,000 in restitution. See United States v.
Sukhtipyaroge, 1 F.4th 603, 606 (8th Cir. 2021). Smith’s contention that her brother
and sister were not victims under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is foreclosed
by the plain language of the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2).

      We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-