Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01805/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01805-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew H. Anselmo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1805

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Matthew H. Anselmo, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2010

Filed: August 11, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Matthew Anselmo pleaded guilty to mail

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2. The district court1

 sentenced him

below the advisory Guidelines range to 48 months in prison and 3 years of supervised

release, and ordered him to pay $3,712,500 in restitution. On appeal, Anselmo’s

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the amount of restitution ordered. 

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

Appellate Case: 10-1805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Entry ID: 3692343
Anselmo has filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting ineffective assistance of

counsel.

First, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining the

amount of restitution. See United States v. United Sec. Sav. Bank, 394 F.3d 564, 566-

67 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (review standard; restitution is mandatory under 18

U.S.C. § 3663A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)-(B) (when sentencing

defendant convicted of any offense that is offense against property under this title--

including any offense committed by fraud or deceit--in which identifiable victims

have suffered pecuniary loss, court shall order that defendant make restitution to

victims); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)

(describing circumstances where finding is clearly erroneous). Second, we decline to

consider Anselmo’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States

v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (ineffective-assistance claim should be

raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion). We also conclude that the district court did not

impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461,

464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standards for reviewing reasonableness of sentence).

 Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 10-1805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Entry ID: 3692343