United States v. Sherri Sotherland

66 F. App'x 84
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 9, 2003
Docket03-1362
StatusUnpublished

This text of 66 F. App'x 84 (United States v. Sherri Sotherland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Sherri Sotherland, 66 F. App'x 84 (8th Cir. 2003).

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[UNPUBLISHED]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. *85 The district court 1 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.

1

. The HONORABLE GEORGE HOWARD, JR., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Alan E. Kaniss
150 F.3d 967 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. David Lane McGlothlin
249 F.3d 783 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Timothy Donald Koons
300 F.3d 985 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 F. App'x 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sherri-sotherland-ca8-2003.