United States v. Sven Ehand
This text of 409 F. App'x 53 (United States v. Sven Ehand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[UNPUBLISHED]
Sven Ehand pled guilty to possessing fifteen or more counterfeit access devices, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3), 2. The district court 1 imposed a prison sentence of 12 months and 1 day, the lower end of the advisory guidelines range. On appeal, Ehand’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising an ineffective-assistance claim. 2
We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.1998) (an ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition). Furthermore, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing a sentence, an appellate court first ensures that the district court committed no significant procedural error and then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (describing abuse of discretion).
Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
. After the Anders brief was filed, Ehand retained new counsel, who filed an appearance on his behalf on January 3, 2011. Ehand’s original appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which was granted on January 4, 2011. Ehand’s newly retained counsel has not requested leave to file a supplemental brief.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
409 F. App'x 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sven-ehand-ca8-2011.