Case ID: f-appx_409/html/0053-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sven EHAND, also known as Mika Jakonen, Appellant.
    No. 10-2208.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 28, 2010.
    Filed: Feb. 11, 2011.
    Richard D. Westphal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Appellee.
    Sven Ehand, Dubuque, IA, pro se.
    Steven Warren Hanna, Moline, IL, for Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

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 court imposed a prison sentence of 12 months and 1 day, the lower end of the advisory guidelines range. On appeal, Ehand’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising an ineffective-assistance claim.

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, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
     
      
      . 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.