## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2485

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Larry Alan Wilson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 8, 1998 Filed: September 11, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Larry Alan Wilson pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to dist

ribute 100 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, but disputed the ending date of the conspirac y charge d by the government. Specifically, the government charged that Wilson & s involvement in the conspiracy began in December 1 993 and ended in May 1994, while Wilson contended that his involvement ended when he was incarcerated for a priorThe Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United Sta tes District Court for 1 the Northern District of Iowa. -2- fe lony drug offense on February 28, 1994. The district court found that Wilson & s 1 invol vement in the conspiracy continued after he was incarcerated and that, based on the prior drug offense, Wilson faced a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The court imposed the 20-year sentence to ru n concurrently with the 172-month sentence that Wilson was serving for the prior drug convic tion, but with no credit for time served to date, and five years & supervise d release. After appell ate counsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we granted Wilson permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, and he has done so. We now affirm.
Wilson first challenges the district court & s conclusion that he committed th e instant offense after a prior felony drug offense had become final; in particular, h e challenges the court & s finding at sentencing that the conspiracy cont inued after Wilson & s incarceration. Wilson & s co-conspirators testified at his sentencing, however, that before Wilson went to prison, he initiated the framework for future drugtransactions involving Wilson & s Californi a supplier and others, and then--from prison--monitored the arrival of package s, offered advice on how to escape detection, and profited from th e conspirac ythrough his supplier & s action in setting aside money for him from th e transactions. We thus find the district court did not clearly err. See United States v. Wayne , 903 F.2d 1188, 1196-97 (8th Cir. 1990) (standard of review). Wilson also challenges the district court & s finding that more than 100 grams of methamphetamine were involved in the instant offense, and contends that there is no eviden ce that the methamphetamine involved was d-methamphetamine. Thes e argume nts fail. The record amply supports the district court & s drug quantity finding

. Moreover, the statute does not differentiate between d- and l-methamphetamine, and in any event, the methamphetamine upon which the co urt based Wilson & s sentence was-3-

identified in a laboratory report received into ev idence as d-methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii); United States v. Payne , 119 F.3d 637, 645 (8th Cir. ) (district court & s determination of drug quantity for sentencing purposes reviewed fo r clear error), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 4 54 (1997); United States v. Maza , 93 F.3d 1390, 1400 n.4 (8th Cir. 1996) (statute does not differentiate between d- and l

methamphetamine), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1008 (1997). Wilson also contends that the government violated B rady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding cooperation agreements with its witnesses, but the recor d shows that the government indicated to the district court at sentencin g that each witness was co operating under plea agreements with the government. See United States v

. Stuart , No. 97-1671, 1998 WL 432481, at *2 (8th Cir. July 31, 1998) (to sho w vi olationof Brady , must establish government suppressed evidence favorable t o defens e and material to guilt or punishment). Wilson & s additional argument that th e government used “statements of witnesses it did or should have known wer e co mmitting perjury” amounts only to conclusory allegations of perjury which ar e insufficient to set aside his conviction or sentence.
Wilson next raises a d ouble jeopardy challenge to the prosecution. Because he did not raise the issue in the district court, however, he may not ra ise it for the first time onappeal. See United States v. Santana , No. 97-3450, 1998 WL 414469, at *3 (8th Cir. July 24, 1998). In any event, “the double jeopardy clause does not bar prosecution of a defendant for conspiracy when the defendant has previously been convicted o f certain overt acts charged in the conspi racy.” United States v. Thomas , 971 F.2d 147, 149 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Felix , 503 U.S. 378 (1992)), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 839 (1993).
Wilson next argues that he did not receive credit for time served, as require d under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), but the district court had no authority to calculate such a sentence credit at sentencing; such authority rests exclusively with the Attorney-4-

General and the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 334-35 (1992). Wilson & s arguments that he should not have received sentence enhancements for a 1988 burglary co nviction, for a managerial role, or for career-offender status fail because th e district court did not enhance his sentence for any of these reasons, an d insteadapplied the mandatory statutory minimum sentence. Finally, we find that the ineffective assi stance claims he raises would be more appropriately addressed in a 28 U.S .C. § 2255 proceeding where a record can be fully developed. See United States v. Mitchell , 136 F.3d 1192, 1193 (8th Cir. 1998). Upon review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed

. Wilson & s motion for substitute counsel is denied. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.