*

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1435

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of North Dakota.

*

Antonio Jose Alonzo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2005

Filed: September 12, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, AND SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Antonio Jose Alonzo guilty of conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute a detectable amount of marijuana and more than 500

grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846. The district court*

 sentenced him to life in prison and 10 years

supervised release. On appeal, counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and moved to withdraw. Alonzo was granted leave to file a pro se
-2-

supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We address counsel’s eight arguments in

the order he presents them, and we affirm Alonzo’s conviction and sentence.

First, the evidence is sufficient to support Alonzo’s conviction despite

consisting largely of testimony by coconspirators testifying under plea agreements,

a fact made known to the jury. See United States v. Tensley, 334 F.3d 790, 793-95

(8th Cir. 2003). Second, it was not a double jeopardy violation for Alonzo to be

prosecuted at the federal level after being tried for the same conduct at the state level.

See United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955, 959-60 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S.

Ct. 285 (2004). Third, the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by

making drug-quantity findings beyond the 500 grams or more of methamphetamine

mixture found by the jury: Alonzo’s sentence is the mandatory statutory minimum

for an offender with two prior felony drug convictions whose instant offense involved

500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).

Fourth, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel should be raised, if at all, in

a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Halter, 411 F.3d 949, 951 (8th

Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Fifth, the admission of an audiotape containing statements made by Alonzo’s

wife to a confidential informant during a controlled buy did not violate the marital

privilege. See United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 795-96 (8th Cir. 2003); United

States v. Evans, 966 F.2d 398, 401 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 988 (1992).

Sixth, reversal is not warranted for a due process violation under the cumulative-error

doctrine. See United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2000). Seventh,

the record contains no suggestion that the warrant to search Alonzo’s apartment and

seize items found there was invalid. Eighth, given the jury’s verdict, it follows there

was probable cause to prosecute Alonzo. See United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S.

66, 67 (1986).
-3-

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

(1988), and finding no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm Alonzo’s conviction and

sentence, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________