Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02075/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David William Tereault
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2075

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District 

* of Minnesota.

David William Tereault, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2004

Filed: May 5, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David William Tereault pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute Roxanol (morphine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and

841(b)(1)(C). The district court1

 sentenced him to 168 months imprisonment and

3 years supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Mr. Tereault has filed

a pro se supplemental brief. 

Appellate Case: 03-2075 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763980 
-2-

After careful review, we find no merit in counsel’s argument that the court

should have used the weight of actual morphine in determining the base offense level

instead of using the entire weight of the Roxanol solution. See United States v.

Young, 992 F.2d 207, 209 (8th Cir. 1993). 

The arguments Mr. Tereault raises are also unavailing. First, his ineffectiveassistance claims are not properly before us. See United States v. Jackson, 204 F.3d

812, 815 (8th Cir. 2000). Next, the district court adequately informed Mr. Tereault

of, and assured he understood, the nature of the conspiracy charge, and adequately

elicited a factual basis for the plea. See United States v. Rea, 300 F.3d 952, 958

(8th Cir. 2002) (factual basis supporting guilty plea exists where there is sufficient

evidence to allow district court to be subjectively satisfied that defendant committed

offense); United States v. Marks, 38 F.3d 1009, 1011 (8th Cir. 1994) (where appellant

argued trial court failed to inform him of nature of charge, question was whether

under totality of circumstances appellant understood nature of charge), cert. denied,

514 U.S. 1067 (1995). Further, Mr. Tereault’s acknowledgment at the plea hearing

that he and his cohorts split up the Roxanol after they obtained it, and that he gave his

share to other people and traded it for things, sufficiently established a conspiracy to

distribute. See United States v. Hester, 140 F.3d 753, 760-61 (8th Cir. 1998).

Finally, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 does not require the district court to

state explicitly that it accepts a guilty plea.

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2075 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763980