United States v. Arthur Senty-Haugen, No. 18-2719 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Arguments concerning a prisoner's place of confinement challenge the execution of the federal sentence and must be brought through a Section 2241 petition after the claim has been exhausted with the Bureau of Prisons; Anders challenge to denial of his motion to suppress denied.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2719 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: June 10, 2019 Filed: July 22, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. While civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Arthur SentyHaugen got caught running a fraudulent tax-refund scheme. He pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 286, and the district court1 sentenced him to ten years in federal prison. On appeal, Senty-Haugen maintains the district court erred by ordering him into the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons rather than returning him to state custody. We have previously explained that arguments concerning a prisoner's "place of confinement challenges the execution of his federal sentence, not its validity or legality," so Senty-Haugen's proper avenue for relief, if any, is through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after he has exhausted his remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Sims, 51 F. App'x 1002, 1003 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam). Senty-Haugen also challenges "on an Anders basis," see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained against him. After reviewing the record and arguments, we find this contention meritless. See United States v. Meeks, 639 F.3d 522, 528–29, 528 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011). Affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
