Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Appellee, v. Floyd Samuel HALVERSON, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-15
Citations: 109 F. App'x 829
Docket Number: No. 03-3574
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Appellee, v. Floyd Samuel HALVERSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 829–830

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Appellee, v. Floyd Samuel HALVERSON, Appellant.
No. 03-3574.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 1, 2004.
Decided Sept. 15, 2004.
Christian S. Wilton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Charles Lee Hawkins, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Floyd Halverson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the District of Minnesota after he pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering charges. The district court sentenced Halverson to concurrent terms of 46 months imprisonment on each count, and to concurrent terms of 4 years supervised release on the drug count and 3 years supervised release on the money-laundering count. Counsel has moved to withdraw on appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentencing court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by using the 2002 Guidelines Manual in calculating the sentence for the money-laundering offense. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The information to which Halverson pleaded guilty specified that the money laundering last occurred on July 2002, at which time the 2001 Guidelines Manual was in effect. Because Halverson's sentence was the same under either the 2001 or 2002 Guidelines, no ex post facto concern arises. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 & comment, n. 2 (court must use Manual in effect on date defendant is sentenced, unless doing so would violate Ex Post Facto Clause; controlling date for ex post facto purposes is last date when offense of conviction was committed).
We have reviewed the record independently for any nonfrivolous issues, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we have found none.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.