United States v. Glenn Valentine , 8 F. App'x 571 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-3366
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Glenn Valentine,                         *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 6, 2000
    Filed: April 11, 2001
    ___________
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,
    Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After a successful 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion, Glenn Valentine was resentenced
    on two counts of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, and one count of
    possessing heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1). The
    district court1 calculated an unobjected-to Guidelines imprisonment range of 210-262
    months, and resentenced him to two concurrent 240-month prison terms on two of the
    counts, a consecutive 22-month prison term on the third count, and 3 years supervised
    1
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Missouri.
    release. On appeal, Valentine’s counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). Valentine has filed a pro se
    supplemental brief, in which he argues that the court erred by imposing the 22-month
    consecutive sentence to achieve the total 262-month sentence because the statutory
    maximum prison term for each count was 240 months.
    We reject Valentine’s challenge to his sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d);
    United States v. Sturgis, 
    238 F.3d 956
    , 960-61 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v.
    Kroeger, 
    229 F.3d 700
    , 703 (8th Cir. 2000). We have reviewed the record
    independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and we have found no
    nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw. We deny as moot Valentine’s request to proceed pro se on
    appeal, in light of the pro se supplemental brief that he has filed and we have
    considered.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-3366

Citation Numbers: 8 F. App'x 571

Judges: Arnold, Beam

Filed Date: 4/11/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024