United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-3297 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Leann Marie Rouse lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: March 12, 2025 Filed: March 17, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Leann Rouse appeals the below-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court after she pleaded guilty to wire fraud. Her counsel has moved for leave to The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors.

See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of- discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also United States v. Noriega, 35 F.4th 643, 652 (8th Cir. 2022) (it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion by imposing below-Guidelines sentence).

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, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-