DocketNumber: 04-4185
Judges: Riley, Magill, Gruender
Filed Date: 4/27/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-4185 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Mary Ann Turner, also known as * Northern District of Iowa. Mary Ann Vlazny, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: April 25, 2006 Filed: April 27, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Mary Ann Turner (Turner) pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine after having been convicted of a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 844(a) and 851 (Count 1); and possessing pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) (Count 2). In December 2004, the district court1 sentenced Turner to concurrent prison terms of 24 months (the statutory maximum) on Count 1 and 71 months on Count 2 (which had 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. a Guidelines range of 57-71 months). “[I]n its discretion” and “after consideration of the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors,” the court pronounced an identical alternative sentence in the event the Guidelines were later found to be unconstitutional. On appeal, Turner’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California,386 U.S. 738
(1967), and Turner filed a pro se supplemental brief. We reject their arguments for the reasons discussed below. First, in light of Turner’s sworn statements at her change-of-plea hearing, we see no reason to doubt the validity of her guilty plea. See Blackledge v. Allison,431 U.S. 63
, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”). Second, sentencing on the basis of admitted drug quantities and a prior felony drug conviction does not result in a Sixth Amendment violation. See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera,412 F.3d 942
, 946 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (drug quantity), cert. denied,126 S. Ct. 1096
(2006); United States v. Torres-Alvarado,416 F.3d 808
, 810 (8th Cir. 2005) (prior conviction). Third, Turner is not entitled to plain-error relief for erroneous sentencing under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, because–given the identical alternative discretionary sentence announced–the record does not establish a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a more favorable sentence under advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Booker,543 U.S. 220
, 233-37, 245, 258-59 (2005); United States v. Pirani,406 F.3d 543
, 550- 54 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,126 S. Ct. 266
(2005). Fourth, the sentence, which was at the top of the Guidelines range, was not unreasonable: the district court stated it had considered the section 3553(a) factors, and we see nothing in the record to rebut the presumption of reasonableness arising from a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range. SeeBooker, 543 U.S. at 261-62
; United States v. Lincoln,413 F.3d 716
, 717-18 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,126 S. Ct. 840
(2005). As to the remaining arguments, the district court did not err in declining to credit Turner for jail time served on a related pending state charge, see United States v. Wilson,503 U.S. 329
, 331-37 (1992) (18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) credit is computed by -2- Attorney General rather than district court), in not recommending placement at the prison facility Turner requested, see 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment.”), or in denying self- surrender or furlough in the absence of exceptional circumstances, see 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1), (b)(1), and § 3145(c); and any ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, see United States v. Hughes,330 F.3d 1068
, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio,488 U.S. 75
, 80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -3-
united-states-of-america-plaintiffappellee-v-martha-alvarado-rivera ( 2005 )
United States v. Edgardo Torres-Alvarado ( 2005 )
United States v. Larry D. Hughes ( 2003 )
United States v. Louis F. Pirani ( 2005 )
United States v. Richard Lincoln ( 2005 )
United States v. Wilson ( 1992 )