United States of America v. Keri Kopriva

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2185
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Keri Kopriva
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: December 17, 2024
Filed: January 8, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Keri Kopriva appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed
after she pled guilty to wire fraud. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
1The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing her
sentence was substantively unreasonable and the district court erred in not accounting
for the time Kopriva previously spent in a residential reentry center pursuant to the
terms of her state probation.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Kopriva, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a
clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors; the sentence was within the
advisory Guidelines range; and the district court considered the state sentence on the
record and determined that a downward variance was not warranted. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review);
United States v. Anderson, 90 F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (district court has
wide latitude in weighing relevant factors); United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932
(8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may presume sentence within properly calculated
guidelines range is reasonable).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --