Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03006/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Byron Pargo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3006

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Byron Pargo, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 30, 2005

Filed: July 13, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Byron Pargo appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to falsely representing a Social Security number to be the number

assigned to him, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). His counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Pargo

has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Appellate Case: 04-3006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927418
-2-

We conclude that the arguments raised on appeal are without merit. First, the

offense-level calculations for purposes of the United States Sentencing Guidelines

were in accordance with the plea agreement. Second, the decision to include a term

of community confinement rather than home detention as a condition of probation

was within the district court’s discretion. See U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1(a)(2). Third, the

possibility that Pargo would have to pay some of the costs of his confinement was

stated in both the plea agreement and the unobjected-to presentence report, although

we note that the district court found he was unable to pay a fine or restitution. To the

extent Pargo asserts that his attorney misadvised him, any related claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel should be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where an

appropriate record may be developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068,

1069 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), including consideration of the impact of United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005), and United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc),

we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927418