Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03574/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03574-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Floyd Samuel Halverson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3574

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota

Floyd Samuel Halverson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 1, 2004

Filed: September 15, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Floyd Halverson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the District of Minnesota after he pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering

charges. The district court sentenced Halverson to concurrent terms of 46 months

imprisonment on each count, and to concurrent terms of 4 years supervised release

on the drug count and 3 years supervised release on the money-laundering count.

Counsel has moved to withdraw on appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentencing court violated the Ex

Appellate Case: 03-3574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811308 
-2-

Post Facto Clause by using the 2002 Guidelines Manual in calculating the sentence

for the money-laundering offense. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

The information to which Halverson pleaded guilty specified that the money

laundering last occurred on July 2002, at which time the 2001 Guidelines Manual was

in effect. Because Halverson’s sentence was the same under either the 2001 or 2002

Guidelines, no ex post facto concern arises. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 & comment. n.2

(court must use Manual in effect on date defendant is sentenced, unless doing so

would violate Ex Post Facto Clause; controlling date for ex post facto purposes is last

date when offense of conviction was committed). 

We have reviewed the record independently for any nonfrivolous issues, see

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found none. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811308