Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03290/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03290-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duke Patrick Soby
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3290

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Duke Patrick Soby, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2007

Filed: June 13, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

Duke Soby appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed upon his guilty plea

to possession with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). His counsel has moved to withdraw and

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal,

counsel argues that the district court should not have assigned Soby more than 1

criminal history point, and that he was therefore eligible for safety-valve relief. In his

Appellate Case: 05-3290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2007 Entry ID: 3319037
-2-

pro se supplemental brief, Soby contends that his counsel below was ineffective and

that the PSR’s recommended weapons enhancement has jeopardized his chances for

certain benefits. We reject these arguments and affirm the sentence.

The district court did not clearly err in its calculation of Soby’s criminal history

points. See United States v. Borer, 412 F.3d 987, 991-92 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of

review). First, the court properly assessed 1 point for Soby’s prior DWI conviction,

for which he was sentenced in 1999, because the sentence was imposed within 10

years of Soby’s commencement of the instant offense, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2), and

Soby has not met his burden of showing that the conviction was constitutionally

invalid, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. (n.6) (sentences resulting from convictions that

have been ruled constitutionally invalid in prior case should not be counted); United

States v. Strange, 102 F.3d 356, 362-63 (8th Cir. 1996) (“bare bones” argument

unsupported by authority does not satisfy defendant’s burden of demonstrating that

state-court conviction was constitutionally infirm). Second, Soby’s convictions for

driving with a cancelled license--for which he was arrested on July 23, 1995, and

sentenced on October 18, 1995--and for aggravated DWI--for which he was arrested

on September 3, 1995, and sentenced on January 28, 1999--were properly treated as

unrelated and assessed 1 criminal history point each. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2)

(“Prior sentences imposed in unrelated cases are to be counted separately. Prior

sentences imposed in related cases are to be treated as one sentence[.]”); United States

v. Newsome, 409 F.3d 996, 999 (8th Cir. 2005) (cases formally consolidated for

sentencing may be considered related under § 4A1.2(a)(2), but where offenses are

separated by intervening arrests, they are unrelated). The 3 points resulting from the

aforementioned convictions were more than enough to make Soby ineligible for

safety-valve relief and subject to the mandatory minimum sentence. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A) (10-year mandatory minimum sentence); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1) (one

requirement for safety-valve relief is that defendant not have more than 1 criminal

history point); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only

authority for district court to depart below statutory minimum is when government

Appellate Case: 05-3290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2007 Entry ID: 3319037
-3-

moves for downward departure based on substantial assistance or defendant qualifies

for safety-valve relief). 

As for Soby’s pro se arguments, we adhere to the general rule that Soby must

raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding,

where the record can be properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d

1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). In addition, Soby provides no support, and we have found

none, for his contention that the weapons-enhancement recommendation in the PSR--

which the district court declined to adopt--has jeopardized his eligibility for any

benefits. 

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw, and we affirm. We also deny Soby’s motion for appointment of new

appellate counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3290 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2007 Entry ID: 3319037