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


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 03-1362
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                               * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    *
    Sherri M. Sotherland,                  *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 3, 2003
    Filed: June 9, 2003
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    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. The district court1 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
    (1967),
    raising the following issues: whether she was afforded her right of allocution,
    1
    The HONORABLE GEORGE HOWARD, JR., United States District Judge
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    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. Koons, 
    300 F.3d 985
    , 993-94 (8th Cir. 2002).
    We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-1362

Citation Numbers: 66 F. App'x 84

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Per Curiam, Riley

Filed Date: 6/9/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024