United States v. Keri Kopriva

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 24-2185
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: December 17, 2024 Filed: January 8, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________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

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