1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2302

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Ronnie Lorenzo Workman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 1, 2006 Filed: June 5, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ronnie Workman appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed upon his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His counsel has moved to w ithdraw and has file d a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, counsel argues that the district court erred in enhancing Workman’s senten ce under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), which provides in relevant part that a defendant’s base offense level is increased by 4 levels if any firearm was used or possessed in connection with another felony offense.-2- We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusion regarding application of the enhancement, and we review the factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Anderson , 339 F.3d 720, 724 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 1084 (2003). We conclude the enhancemen t was properly assessed.

First, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Workman possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute it: the government’s witness testified that Workman was found with a backpack contai ning drug parapherna lia, digital scales, baggies containing 5.4 grams of methamphetamine, a “bindle” (folded-up piece of paper), a box with Workman’s street name on it, and the firearm. According to the witness, the nature of th ese items and the quantity of methamphetamine involved indicated that the methamphetamine was being held for distribution. See United States v. Hallam , 407 F.3d 942, 949 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court did not err in finding defendant possessed w ith intent to distribute methamphetamine for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement where search of defendant’s house uncovered firearms, drug paraphernalia asso ciated with manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, almost 4 grams of methamphetamine, and almost $800); United States v. Tensley , 334 F.3d 790, 795 (8th Cir. 2003) (some factors that may lead to conclusion that drugs were intended for distribution include quantity of drugs, packaging material, paraphernalia, and presence of guns)

. Second, this conduct constituted a “felony offense” within the meaning of section 2K2.1(b)(5). See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, comment. (n .7) (felony offense as used in subsection (b)(5) is any federal, state, or local offense punishab le by at least 1 year in prison, whether or not criminal char ge was brought or conviction obtained); Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(b)(7) (possession with intent to distribute 5 grams to 5 kilograms of methamphetamine or methamphetamine -mixture is class “B” felony) (1997), 902.9(2) (class “B” felon shall be conf ined no more than 25 years) (1997).-3- Third, the district court did not clearly err in determining that it was not clearly improbable the firearm was used in connection with the distribution felony: the firearm was found in the same backpack as the methamphetamine and paraphernalia, and the government’s witness testified thatnarcotics distributors often use firearms to protect their product and earnings. See Hallam , 407 F.3d at 949 (when other offense is drug-related, § 2K 2.1(b)(5) enhancement is a ppropriate unless it is clearly improbable that firearm was used in connec tion with that offense; appellate court could not say it was clearly improbable that firearm found in house with methamphetamine and other drug paraphernalia had pote ntial of facilitating drug crimes, as firearms are tools of drug trade providing protection and intimidation).

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issu es. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________