#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mary Ann TURNER, also known as Mary Ann Vlazny, Appellant.

No. 04-4185.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2006.

Filed April 27, 2006.

Daniel Christopher TVedt, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appel-lee.

Mary Ann Turner, Federal Correctional Institution, Pekin, IL, pro se.

David E. Mullin, Mullin & Laverty, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Mary Ann Turner (Turner) pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine after having been convicted of a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 844(a) and 851 (Count 1); and possessing pseu-doephedrine knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) (Count 2). In December 2004, the district court1 sentenced Turner to concurrent prison terms of 24 months (the statutory maximum) on Count 1 and 71 months on Count 2 (which had a Guidelines range of 57-71 months). “[I]n its discretion” and “after consideration of the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ] factors,” the court pronounced an identical alternative sentence in the event the Guidelines were later found to be unconstitutional. On appeal, Turner’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Turner filed a pro se supplemental brief. We reject their arguments for the reasons discussed below.

First, in light of Turner’s sworn statements at her change-of-plea hearing, we see no reason to doubt the validity of her guilty plea. *See Blackledge v. Allison,*431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”). Second, sentencing on the basis of admitted drug quantities and a prior felony drug conviction does not result in a Sixth Amendment violation. *See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera,*412 F.3d 942, 946 n. 3 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc) (drug quantity), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1096, 163 L.Ed.2d 909 (2006); *United States v. Torres-Alvarado,*416 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir.2005) (prior conviction). Third, Turner is not entitled to plain-error relief for erroneous sentencing under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, because-given the iden*601tical alternative discretionary sentence announeed-the record does not establish a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a more favorable sentence under advisory Guidelines. *See United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); *United States v. Pirani,*406 F.3d 543, 550-54 (8th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 266, 163 L.Ed.2d 239 (2005). Fourth, the sentence, which was at the top of the Guidelines range, was not unreasonable: the district court stated it had considered the section 3553(a) factors, and we see nothing in the record to rebut the presumption of reasonableness arising from a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range. *See Booker,*543 U.S. at 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738; *United States v. Lincoln,*413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005).

As to the remaining arguments, the district court did not err in declining to credit Turner for jail time served on a related pending state charge, *see United States v. Wilson,*503 U.S. 329, 331-37, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) credit is computed by Attorney General rather than district court), in not recommending placement at the prison facility Turner requested, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment.”), or in denying self-surrender or furlough in the absence of exceptional circumstances, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1), (b)(1), and § 3145(c); and any ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, *see United States v. Hughes,*330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir.2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.