United States v. Shanan Smith

Opinion

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Submitted: April 6, 2023 Filed: April 12, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________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