The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1733

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Robert W. S. Skogstad, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 26, 1998

 Filed: March 30, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert W. S. Skogstad pleaded guilty to a counterfeiting offense, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 472, and the district court sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment and 1

three years supervised release. Skogstad appeals his sentence, and we affirm.

Skogstad attempted to make a purchase with a computer-generated counterfeit

$20 bill, and the store clerk, suspecting the bill was counterfeit, called the police. At
-2-

sentencing, Skogstad argued the bill he produced was so obviously counterfeit that an

offense-level increase under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B5.1(b)(2) (1997),

for persons who produce counterfeit money or possess a counterfeiting device, was

unwarranted. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B5.1, comment. (n.4) (1997)

(§ 2B5.1(b)(2) “does not apply to persons who merely photocopy notes or otherwise

produce items that are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted

even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny”). After the government offered testimony

of the investigating Secret Service agent, who indicated that the counterfeit note was

of high quality, and that the store clerk&s suspicion involving the counterfeit bill was

preceded by his observation of unusual behavior on Skogstad&s part, the district court

examined the counterfeit bill and determined it would be accepted as genuine by a

reasonable person. We conclude that the district court&s finding is not clearly

erroneous. See United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 76-77 (4th Cir. 1996). In addition,

contrary to Skogstad&s contentions on appeal, the district court could rely on the agent&s

hearsay testimony concerning the store clerk&s statement, and the agent&s testimony as

to the quality of the counterfeit bill. See United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 401-02

(8th Cir. 1993) (en banc), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 989 (1993); United States v.

Thompson, 730 F.2d 82, 85 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1024 (1984).

Skogstad also challenges the special conditions of supervised release imposed

by the district court--that he be required to participate in programs of testing and

treatment for substance abuse, and of mental health treatment, as directed by the

probation officer. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court

did not commit plain error in imposing those requirements. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(b) (1997) (factors to consider in imposing conditions of

supervised release); United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir. 1997) (per

curiam) (standard of review).
-3-

Finally, Skogstad&s complaints about his counsel&s performance should be raised

in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record can be adequately developed. See

United States v. Jackson, 41 F.3d 1231, 1233 (8th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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