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Submitted: March 14, 2025 Filed: March 19, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________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

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 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 Appx. 478, 480-81 (8th Cir. 2014) (unpublished per curiam) (prejudice requirement).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-