United States v. Leann Rouse

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-3297 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Leann Marie Rouse

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: March 12, 2025 Filed: March 17, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Leann Rouse appeals the below-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district 1 court after she pleaded guilty to wire fraud. Her counsel has moved for leave to

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of- discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United States v. Noriega, 35 F.4th 643, 652 (8th Cir. 2022) (it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion by imposing below-Guidelines sentence).

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

-2-