* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-50086

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOBBY DALTON LAIRD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

( W-95-CR-39-1) )

_________________________________________________________________

December 4, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On this direct appeal, Bobby Dalton Laird presents five issues

in challenging his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to

possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. First, Laird con tends that the

district cou rt abused its discretion in admitting evidence that

Laird had been observed carrying a firearm during the course of theconspiracy. Because this evidence was highly probative of his

c riminal intent to participate in the conspiracy, the district

court did not abuse its discretion. U nited States v. Martinez

, 808

F.2d 1050, 1056-57 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 481 U.S. 1032 (1987).

Laird asserts next that the district court abused its

discretion by into evidence 55.10 grams of methamphetamine (Gov.

exs. 34 and 35) because the Government allegedly failed to link the

evidence to him. No authority need be cited for the rule that, no

objection having been made at trial, we review only for plain

error. The Government introduced evidence that the methamphetamine

was seized from the residence of a coconspirator, David Clendenen.

Clendenen testified that he had received the methamphetamine from

Laird two day s before the former’s residence was searched.

Needless to say, there was no plain error.

Laird maintains that the district court clearly erred in

increasing his offense level under Guidelines §2D1.1, pursuant to

finding that Laird had been observed carrying a firearm during the

course of the conspiracy. This finding was based on evidence that

Laird was observed by a coconspirator carrying a firearm, and a

statement in the Presentence Report, given to the probation officer

by another coco nspirator, that Laird was observed carrying a

firearm on at least six occasions. The court did not clearly err.

Laird contends also that the district court clearly erred in

calculating his sentence based on the above referenced

methamphetamine. As discussed, the Government presented evidencedirectly linking La ird to the methamphetamine. Therefore, the

court did not clearly err.

Finally, Laird claims that his trial counsel was ineffective

in failing to object to the trial court’s assumption that his case

involved D-methamphetamine, instead of L-methamphetamine. This

claim cannot be resolved on direct appeal because it was not raised

in the district court and no opportunity existed to develop the

record on its merits. E .g., United States v. Higdon

, 832 F.2d 312,

313-14 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied

, 484 U.S. 10 75 (1988). Of

course, this claim may be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding.

AFFIRMED