Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01654/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01654-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy A. Kateusz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1654

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Timothy A. Kateusz, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2007

Filed: June 7, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Timothy A. Kateusz guilty of conspiring to manufacture 5 grams

or more of actual methamphetamine and attempting to manufacture 5 grams or more

of actual methamphetamine. The district court1

 imposed two concurrent sentences of

120 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release, the statutory minimum. On

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

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

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

Appellate Case: 06-1654 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317158
2

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District

of Missouri.

-2-

First, we conclude that the district court2

 did not err by crediting three police

officers’ testimony over Kateusz’s testimony at the suppression hearing. See

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Second, we conclude

that the court did not err by imposing two $100 special assessments because Kateusz

is serving two sentences, the imposition of which does not violate double jeopardy.

See United States v. Boykins, 966 F.2d 1240, 1244-45 (8th Cir. 1992). Third, we

conclude that the court did not err by applying the enhanced statutory minimum of 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii) because it applies to the instant manufacturing offenses,

see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and Kateusz’s prior felony conviction for possessing a

controlled substance is a “prior conviction for a felony drug offense,” see 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(B); United States v. Maynie, 257 F.3d 908, 919 n.5 (8th Cir. 2001).

Fourth, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to show that Kateusz could

manufacture at least 5 grams of actual methamphetamine. See United States v.

Anderson, 236 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2001).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

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

motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1654 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317158