The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern 1 District of Iowa. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1636

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Lawrence Stanley Held, also known as * Northern District of Iowa Stan Held, * * {UNPUBLISHED} Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 26, 1998 Filed: April 16, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lawrence Stanley Held appeals his conviction and 1 35-month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, after a jury found 1 hi m guilty of conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribut e methamphetamine. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S

. 738 (1967), and was gr anted leave to withdraw. Held has filed a supplemental pro se-2-

brief and a motion for appointment of counsel. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Accor ding to the trial testimony, after law enforcement officials executed a search w arrant on a package sent through United Parcel Service (UPS) and found six one-pound plastic-wrapped bundles of methamphetamine, officials allowe d the package to be picke d up by the addressee--a Mark Davis. On May 8, 1996, Held an d codefen dant Teresa Ann Carman came to the UPS office to pick up the package, and were told it had mistakenly been placed on the delivery truck; they were told they could retrieve the package later that day. That afternoon, Held returned for the package , sign ed“Mark Davis,” and left. Police officers then arrested Held and Carman, wh o was waiting in a car outside.
Po lice officers testified that, during the surveillance and subsequent search o f Held & s residence which he shared wit h Carman, they observed on the telephone Caller ID several recordings of a phone number registered to Jose Leon, and they saw a vehi cle with a license plate registered to Leon stop at the residence on May 8. Th e gover nment

introduced testimony that Leon was involved in drug trafficking. Whe n Held was arrested, he had in his pocket what appeared to be a note evidencing a drug transaction. Held testified in his own defense, d enying he knew the package contained drugs, denying he knew Leon or “Mark Davis,” and stating the note in his pocket was a record of mo ney he lent a friend. He testified that he merely picked up the package as a favor for a friend of Carman & s cousin. The jury found Held guilty. At sentencing, the district court grant ed a downward departure as to Held & s criminal history category under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s., an d senten ced Held to two concurrent 135-month terms of imprisonment and tw o concurrent 5-year terms of supervised release.-3-

On appeal, both counsel and Held argue there was insufficient evidence t o supp ort the conviction. Held also argues that he is entitled to a new trial because o f
error s in the drug-quantity calculation, the evidence concerning the type o f methamphetamine, and the admission of evidence resulting from a UPS search. He also argues that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective.
“To convict a defendant of conspiracy, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreeme nt to achieve some illegal purpose, that the defendant kn ew of the agreement, and that the defendant knowingly became a part of the conspiracy.” United States v. Ivey , 915 F.2d 380, 383-84 (8th Cir. 1990). “Once
a co nspiracy is established, even slight evidence connecting a defendant to th e conspiracy may be sufficient to prove the defendant & s involvement.” Id. at 384. When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we evaluate the entire record in the light mostfavo rable to the government, draw from the facts all reasonable inferences i n favor of the government, and affirm if a reasonable factfinder could have found guil t beyond a reaso nable doubt. See United States v. Walcott , 61 F.3d 635, 638 (8th Cir. 1995) , cert. denied , 516 U.S. 1132 (1996). Although the evidence proving a conspiracy and tying Held to that conspiracy is slim, we conclude that the jury could have reasonably di sbelieved Held & s denial of knowledge regarding the contents of the package and the fictitious addressee, and believed that he was involved in dru g trafficking as evidenced by t he visit and phone calls to his home from a person known to be involved with drugs, by his return to UPS to collect the package, and by the note in his pocket showing a prior drug transaction.
We deny Held & s motion for appointment of counsel because his arguments are without merit. First, we review these issues only for plain error because he made no objections at trial or at

sentencing. See Fritz v. United States , 995 F.2d 136, 137 (8th Cir. 1993) (absent plain error, court will not consider issues raised for first time o n appeal as bas is for reversal), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1075 (1994). Second, no plai n error exists. No foreseeability finding was necessary because Held agreed, for-4-

sentencing purposes, to the calculation of the amount of dru gs. The laboratory analysis showing that the drugs were d-methamphetamine was sufficient. See United States v. Maza , 93 F .3d 1390, 1401 (8th Cir. 1996) (government bears burden of provin g methamphetamine was d-methamphetamine; review is for clear error), c ert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1008 (1997); see also United States v. Loveless , No. 97-2960, slip op. at 1 0 (1998 WL 105970) (8th Cir. Mar. 12, 1998) (proof substance is d-methamphetamine
ma ybe by direct or circumstantial evidence). To the extent Held challenges a s unlawfulUPS & s search of the package, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated i n searches by pri vate parties, and there is no evidence government officials encouraged UPS t o open the package. See United States v. Parker , 32 F.3d 395, 398 (8th Cir

. 1994). When law enforcement authorities opened the package, they did so pursuan t to a search warrant. Finally, any claims of ineffect ive assistance of counsel would best be resolved in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. Upon our review of the complete record, we find no other nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.