DocketNumber: 03-3574
Citation Numbers: 109 F. App'x 829
Judges: Wollman, McMillian, Riley
Filed Date: 9/15/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 03-3574 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota Floyd Samuel Halverson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: September 1, 2004 Filed: September 15, 2004 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Floyd Halverson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the District of Minnesota after he pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering charges. The district court sentenced Halverson to concurrent terms of 46 months imprisonment on each count, and to concurrent terms of 4 years supervised release on the drug count and 3 years supervised release on the money-laundering count. Counsel has moved to withdraw on appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,386 U.S. 738
(1967), arguing that the sentencing court violated the Ex 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Post Facto Clause by using the 2002 Guidelines Manual in calculating the sentence for the money-laundering offense. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. The information to which Halverson pleaded guilty specified that the money laundering last occurred on July 2002, at which time the 2001 Guidelines Manual was in effect. Because Halverson’s sentence was the same under either the 2001 or 2002 Guidelines, no ex post facto concern arises. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 & comment. n.2 (court must use Manual in effect on date defendant is sentenced, unless doing so would violate Ex Post Facto Clause; controlling date for ex post facto purposes is last date when offense of conviction was committed). We have reviewed the record independently for any nonfrivolous issues, see Penson v. Ohio,488 U.S. 75
(1988), and we have found none. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-