The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2811

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Terry Lee Guido, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 17, 1998 Filed: March 2, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Te rry Lee Guido appeals his conviction and resulting 78-month sentenc e imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to one count of attempting t o 1 pos sess with intent to distribute cocaine. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brie f pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and was granted leave t o withdraw. Guido has filed a pro se supp lemental brief raising additional issues for our consideration. We affirm.-2-

G uido suggests he should have received a 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment, rather than a 2-level adjustment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b)(2) (1997). As Guido & s sentencing counsel not only failed to object to the 2-level adjustment, but a greed with it, we review for plain error. See United States v. Bal l , 999 F.2d 339, 340-341 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Notwithstanding certai n language in the parties & plea stipulation, we find no plain error in the 2-l evel adjustment, as Guido pleaded guilty the day of trial. See United States v. Nomeland , 7 F.3d 744, 747, 749-50 (8th Cir. 1993).
Guid o & s sentencing counsel likewise failed to specifically challenge th e presentence report & s (PSR) characterization of Guido & s role in the offense, or to present any evidence regarding his culpability; thus we review for plain error Guido & s argument that he should have been granted a role-in-the-offense reduction. See United States v. Carnes , 945 F .2d 1013, 1014 (8th Cir. 1991). We conclude that the district court did not p lainly err in failing to grant such a reduction. See U.S. Sentencing Guideline s Manual § 3B1. 2(a), (b) (1997); United States v. Cepeda , 907 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir

. 1990) (d istrict court not required to consider § 3B1.2 reduction where defendant was charged with only one count of four-count indictment against he and co-d efendants, and that count described only transaction for which he was convicted); United States v

. Williams , 890 F.2d 102, 104 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (defendant & s courier status does not necessarily mean he is less culpable).

Becau se state court documents bearing Guido & s signature clearly reflect tha t Terry Lee Guido pleaded guilty to giving a false name, and because the district court
--as factfinder--determined that the signature matched an uncontested signature o f Guido, we find no clear error in the assessment of a criminal history point for the falsename conviction Guido challenges. See United States v. Covington , No. 97-2604, slip op. at 3 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 1998) (standard of review).-3-

Guido & s challenges to the drug quantity attributed to him, the firear m enhancement

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(b)(1) (1997), and the factual basis and voluntariness of his plea, are each without merit, based on his ple a stipulations and in-court admissions. See United States v . Early , 77 F.3d 242, 244 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (defendant who did not challenge plea agreement was bound by stipula tions therein); United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995 ) (“defendant who explicitlyand voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that

punishment on appeal”); cf. Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1 977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”)

. Counsel & s misadvice r

egarding Guido & s sentence does not render his plea involuntary. See United States v. Bond , No. 97-1668, sli p op. at 2 (8th Cir. Feb. 6, 1998). Guido & s double-jeopardy challenge is meritless. See United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 21 48-49 (1996) (holding civil forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) and (7) ar e neither “punishment” nor criminal for purposes of Double Jeopardy Clause).
We decline to address Guido & s claims that plea cou nsel was ineffective, as such claims are more properly presented in a motion to vacate pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Reyna-Segovia , 125 F.3d 645, 646 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (ineffective-assistance claims should be raised collaterally rather than on direct appeal).
We have reviewed the record for nonfrivolous is sues in accordance with Penson
v. Ohio , 4 88 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found none. Guido & s motion fo r appointment of substitute counsel is denied. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.-4-

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