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 Robert W. S. Skogstad, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant.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 c ourt sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment and 1 three years supervised release. Skogstad appeals his sentence, and we affirm. Skogsta d attempted to make a purchase with a computer-generated counterfeit $20 b ill, and the store clerk, suspecting the bill was counterfeit, called the police. At-2-

sentencing, Skogstad arg ued the bill he produced was so obviously counterfeit that an offense-level increase under U.S. Sentencing Guideli nes Manual § 2B5.1(b)(2) (1997), forperson s who produce counterfeit money or possess a counterfeiting device, wa s unwarranted. SeeU.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 it ems that are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepte d even if subje cted to only minimal scrutiny”). After the government offered testimony of the investigating Secret Service agent, who indicated that the counterfeit note was of hig h quality, and that the store clerk & s suspicion involving the counterfeit bill wa s preceded by hi s observation of unusual behavior on Skogstad & s part, the district court examine dthe counterfeit bill and determined it would be accepted as genuine by a reasonable person. We conclude that the district court & s finding is not clearl y 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. 19 93) (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). Skogstadalso challenges the special conditions of supervised release imposed by the district court--that he be required to participate in programs of testing an d trea tment for substance abuse, and of mental health treatment, as directed by th e probation officer. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court di dnot commit plain error in imposing those requirements. See U.S. Sentencin g Guid elines Manual § 5D1.3(b) (1997) (factors to consider in imposing conditions o f super visedrelease); United States v. Morey , 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir. 1997) (pe r 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.