United States of America v. Aki Awou, also known as Ainangkung Awou

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2600
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Aki Awou, also known as Ainangkung Awou
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: March 14, 2025
Filed: March 19, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Aki Awou appeals after a jury found him guilty of drug offenses, and the
district court1 imposed an above-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has moved for
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the district court’s denial of Awou’s motion to suppress, the
timing of the district court’s reading of the jury instructions, and the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
After careful review, we conclude that the court did not err in denying Awou’s
motion to suppress, as any errors in the warrants were technical, and Awou failed to
show that any errors were made deliberately or with reckless disregard for procedure,
or that the warrants lacked probable cause but-for the errors. See United States v.
Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 381 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); United States v.
Timley, 443 F.3d 615, 624-25 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. White, 356 F.3d 865,
868-69 (8th Cir. 2004). We reject Awou’s jury-instruction argument because he has
not shown that he was prejudiced by the district court’s timing in reading the jury
instructions. See United States v. Tovar, 569 Fed. Appx. 478, 480-81 (8th Cir. 2014)
(unpublished per curiam) (prejudice requirement). Finally, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Awou. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see
also United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (finding that an
upward variance was reasonable where the court made an individualized assessment
based on the facts presented).
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 the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --