Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03051/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Southy Thepmontry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3051

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Southy Thepmontry, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2006

Filed: September 14, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After a jury found Southy Thepmontry guilty of conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,

the district court1

 sentenced him to 200 months in prison and 3 years of supervised

release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Thepmontry has filed a pro se supplemental

brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court

and grant counsel’s withdrawal motion.

Appellate Case: 05-3051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2006 Entry ID: 2089209
-2-

Counsel argues that the district court erred by determining the drug quantity for

which Thepmontry was responsible at sentencing because a key witness was not

credible. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err. See Anderson v. City

of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985) (district court’s finding based on

credibility determination is virtually never clear error so long as it is not internally

inconsistent or based on testimony that is incoherent, implausible, or contradicted by

objective evidence); United States v. Milton, 153 F.3d 891, 898 (8th Cir. 1998)

(standard of review).

Turning to Thepmontry’s pro se arguments, we previously have rejected the

contention that Guidelines enhancements must be charged in the indictment and

proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Okai, 454 F.3d

848, 850-52 (8th Cir. 2006). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by not appointing an interpreter at Thepmontry’s competency examination.

See Luna v. Black, 772 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (discussing when

interpreter is required); United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1291 (8th

Cir. 1985) (standard of review). As to Thepmontry’s claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel, it must be raised (if at all) in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United

States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court “will

consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal only where the record has been

fully developed, where not to act would amount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or

where counsel’s error is readily apparent”).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2006 Entry ID: 2089209