United States v. Sven Ehand ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2208
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Southern District of Iowa.
    Sven Ehand, also known as               *
    Mika Jakonen,                           * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 28, 2010
    Filed: February 11, 2011
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Sven Ehand pled guilty to possessing fifteen or more counterfeit access devices,
    a violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1029
    (a)(3), 2. The district court1 imposed a prison
    sentence of 12 months and 1 day, the lower end of the advisory guidelines range. On
    1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    appeal, Ehand’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), raising an ineffective-assistance claim.2
    We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal.
    See United States v. Cain, 
    134 F.3d 1345
    , 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (an ineffective-
    assistance claim should be raised in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     petition). Furthermore, we
    conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a
    substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007)
    (in reviewing a sentence, an appellate court first ensures that the district court
    committed no significant procedural error and then considers the substantive
    reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard); United States
    v. Haack, 
    403 F.3d 997
    , 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion).
    Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), we find
    no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    2
    After the Anders brief was filed, Ehand retained new counsel, who filed an
    appearance on his behalf on January 3, 2011. Ehand’s original appellate counsel filed
    a motion to withdraw, which was granted on January 4, 2011. Ehand’s newly
    retained counsel has not requested leave to file a supplemental brief.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2208

Judges: Wollman, Melloy, Gruender

Filed Date: 2/11/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024