United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 24-1715
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                 Alexander Ituma

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: April 3, 2025
                              Filed: April 28, 2025
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Alexander Ituma appeals after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit
wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and several substantive counts
of wire fraud; and the district court 1 sentenced him to 100 months in prison. His

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury verdict, raising challenges to the sentence, and asserting that
Ituma’s prior attorneys were ineffective. Ituma has filed a pro se motion for
appointment of new appellate counsel.

       Upon careful review,2 we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the
jury to convict Ituma of all counts. See United States v. Mickelson, 

 (8th Cir. 2004) (defendant challenging sufficiency of evidence in conspiracy
case has heavy burden; government need only show that those involved operated
pursuant to common scheme or had tacit understanding, rather than formal
agreement; circumstantial evidence and inferences from parties’ actions may be used
to establish conspiracy’s existence).

       As to the sentencing issues raised by counsel, the error regarding the $25,000
loss—which occurred prior to Ituma joining the conspiracy in March 2015—did not
impact the Guidelines range, see United States v. Karie, 

 (8th Cir.
2020) (finding that, even if court clearly erred in calculating loss amount, error was
harmless because it did not impact Guidelines range); and evidence presented during
trial showed that Ituma was involved in the €10 million loss, see United States v.
Flying By, 

 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant may be held liable for loss
caused by fellow participant in common scheme; court did not err in finding


      2
       During trial, Ituma moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the
government’s case, and the district court denied the motion. He did not renew his
motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence. “Our precedents diverge
on the question whether a failure to renew a motion for judgment of acquittal
preserves a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, thus warranting de novo review,
or waives the argument, resulting in only plain error review.” United States v.
Marble, No. 23-1615, 

, at *2 n.3 (8th Cir. July 23, 2024) (per
curiam) (collecting cases); see also United States v. King, 

 (8th
Cir. 2017). Because Ituma’s argument fails under either standard of review, we need
not consider which one applies here.

                                         -2-
defendant responsible for loss from all reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of
scheme). However, the $25,000 loss error does affect Ituma’s restitution obligations
because the $25,000 loss was included in Ituma’s restitution judgment. As to this
error, we thus remand with instructions to omit Malone’s loss from Ituma’s
restitution judgment. See United States v. Matheny, 

 (8th Cir.
2022) (noting that when record makes clear amount of restitution court should have
awarded, appellate court may remand for entry of corrected restitution order without
requiring additional fact-finding). Counsel also challenges the sophisticated-means
enhancement, but Ituma withdrew his objection to the enhancement below. See
United States v. Thompson, 

 (8th Cir. 2002) (defendant was
precluded from arguing objections to presentence report on appeal because lawyer
withdrew objections in district court). Finally, the district court did not err in
assessing a criminal history point based on a prior criminal charge that was
ultimately dismissed after Ituma’s guilty plea to the charge was held in abeyance.
See USSG § 4A1.2(f) (diversionary disposition resulting from admission of guilt in
judicial proceeding is counted as sentence even if conviction is not formally
entered); United States v. Dell, 

 (10th Cir. 2004) (plea in
abeyance constitutes sentence under § 4A1.2(f) and therefore receives criminal
history point).

       To the extent counsel raises an ineffective-assistance claim, we conclude such
a claim is better suited for collateral proceedings. See United States v. Long, 

 (8th Cir. 2013) (generally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are
better left for post-conviction proceedings).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

 (1988), and have found no remaining non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we vacate and remand on the restitution issue but otherwise affirm the
judgment, grant counsel leave to withdraw, and deny Ituma’s motion for new
appellate counsel.
                     ______________________________


                                         -3-