United States v. Casey L. Brown ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-1266
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Casey L. Brown,                        *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 23, 2002
    Filed: July 29, 2002
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Casey L. Brown pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with
    intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine,
    within 1,000 feet of a public school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 860. The
    district court1 sentenced him to 168 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised
    release. On appeal, Brown’s attorney has filed a brief and has moved to withdraw
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the District of Nebraska.
    under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). Brown has filed a pro se
    supplemental brief. We affirm Brown’s conviction and sentence.
    Specifically, we reject Brown’s argument that the district court lacked
    jurisdiction, see United States v. Peck, 
    161 F.3d 1171
    , 1174 (8th Cir. 1998), and his
    pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly before us, see United
    States v. Martin, 
    59 F.3d 767
    , 771 (8th Cir. 1995). To the extent Brown is also
    arguing that he is entitled to reversal because his indictment is somehow defective,
    that argument fails as well. Finally, we note that Brown alludes to allegedly false
    information in his presentence report, but he does not specify the information.
    Further, we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal upon our independent
    review pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    (1988). Accordingly, the judgment
    of the district court is affirmed. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny
    Brown’s motion for a stay of the mandate. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A).
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1266

Judges: McMillian, Wollman, Loken

Filed Date: 7/29/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024