United States v. Alec Respects Nothing

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 12, 2022
• Docket: 22-1394
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-1394 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alec Respects Nothing

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________

Submitted: September 6, 2022 Filed: September 12, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Alec Respects Nothing received a 144-month prison sentence after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846. An Anders brief suggests that the district court 1 deprived him of a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161; see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief raises several other issues.

We conclude that there has been no violation of the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h); see also United States v. Aldaco, 477 F.3d 1008, 1017–18 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that there was no Speedy Trial Act problem because of “excludable” days). Nor has there been a violation of his speedy-trial rights under the Sixth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; United States v. Shepard, 462 F.3d 847, 864–65 (8th Cir. 2006).

His other arguments fare no better. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to sever, see United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919, 927 (8th Cir. 2009), and nothing in the record shows that the government vindictively sought a higher sentence because he opted for trial, see Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212, 223–24 (1978).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-