United States v. Timothy A. Kateusz, No. 06-1654 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. District court did not err in crediting police officers' testimony at a hearing to revoke defendant's supervised release; no error in imposing two special assessments as defendant is serving two sentences; court did not err in imposing the enhanced statutory minimum of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(B)(viii); evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant could manufacture at least 5 grams of methamphetamine.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1654 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Timothy A. Kateusz, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: May 31, 2007 Filed: June 7, 2007 ___________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Timothy A. Kateusz guilty of conspiring to manufacture 5 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and attempting to manufacture 5 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The district court1 imposed two concurrent sentences of 120 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release, the statutory minimum. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Kateusz has filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. First, we conclude that the district court2 did not err by crediting three police officers testimony over Kateusz s testimony at the suppression hearing. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Second, we conclude that the court did not err by imposing two $100 special assessments because Kateusz is serving two sentences, the imposition of which does not violate double jeopardy. See United States v. Boykins, 966 F.2d 1240, 1244-45 (8th Cir. 1992). Third, we conclude that the court did not err by applying the enhanced statutory minimum of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii) because it applies to the instant manufacturing offenses, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and Kateusz s prior felony conviction for possessing a controlled substance is a prior conviction for a felony drug offense, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); United States v. Maynie, 257 F.3d 908, 919 n.5 (8th Cir. 2001). Fourth, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to show that Kateusz could manufacture at least 5 grams of actual methamphetamine. See United States v. Anderson, 236 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2001). Finally, after reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
