### The HONORABLE RODNEY S. WEBB, Chief Judge of the Unite d 1 

### States District Court for the District of North Dakota. ___________ No. 95-2225

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Clifford Scott Eaton, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1996 Filed: May 21, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Clifford Scott Eaton obtained a state identification card and a duplicate social security card under the name of Bradley J. Tobias and use d both cards to open a bank account in Billings, M ontana. He wrote numerous bad che cks against that account. When he passed two of those checks i n North Dakota, he was arrested, waived indictment, and pleaded guilty to on e count of falsely representing another person's social security number to be his, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). Eaton now appeals, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Eaton has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues. We affirm.
Counsel first argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to 1 accept Eaton's guilty plea because his crime was

### -2-

committed in Montana. Because the indictment onits face properly alleged jurisdiction and venue, this contention was waiv ed by Eaton's guilty plea. See United States v. Fitzhugh , 78 F.3d 1326, 1330 (8th Cir. 1996).

Counsel n ext argues that the district court erred in failing t o depart downward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s. (ad equacy of criminal history category). The court refused to depart because Eaton's twenty-six crimina l hist ory points were "off the chart." That exercise of discretion i s unreview able
. See United States v. Hall , 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th Cir
. 1993).

Counsel a rgues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in imposing supervised release conditions requiring Eaton to abstain from using alcohol an d to obtain probation-office approval before opening
a line of credit or obtaining new credit-card charges. Given Eaton's prio r convictions for fraud, deceptive practice, obtai ning property by worthless checks, and possessing counterfeit and unauthorized access devices, and hi s admission that chronic substance abuse has led to his criminal activity, the ch allenged supervised release conditions were not error, much les s plain error. See United States v. Prendergast , 979 F.2d 1289, 1292-93 (8t h Cir. 1992) (standard of review; criteria for imposing supervised release conditions).

Eaton f urther argues that the two checks he passed in North Dakot a should not be included in the amount of loss attributable to his offense for sentencing purposes because he was separatel y prosecuted and sentenced for that conduct in state court. We conclude the district court did not clearly e rr in counting this as relevant conduct, rather than as a pas t sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) & comment. (n.9); United States v. Blumbe rg , 961 F.2d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 1992) (conduct that is part o f current offense is relevant conduct, not past sentence). Eaton i s responsible for the t otal value of the loss he attempted to inflict. See United

### -3-

States v. Smith , 62 F .3d 1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 826 (1996). We also reject his pro se double-counting and double

jeopardy arguments. See Witte v. United States , 115 S. Ct. 2199, 2207-08 (1995).
Finally, Eaton argues pro se that the district court violated Fed
. R. Crim. P. 32 by failing to make written findings on Eaton's objections to the p resentence report (PSR). However, at sentencing the cour t separ ately ruled on each objection or stated that it was immaterial t o sen tencing. We instruct the court to append a copy of the sentencin g transcript and this o pinion to the PSR. See Rule 32(c)(1); United States v. Miller , 951 F.2d 164, 166 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 48 8 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), a nd conclude that no other nonfrivolous issues exist. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.