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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 court1

 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 withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, counsel argues that the district court

erred in enhancing Workman’s sentence 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 enhancement 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 containing drug paraphernalia, 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 these 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 with intent to distribute methamphetamine for purposes

of § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement where search of defendant’s house uncovered firearms,

drug paraphernalia associated 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 punishable by at least 1 year

in prison, whether or not criminal charge 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 confined 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 that narcotics distributors often use firearms

to protect their product and earnings. See Hallam, 407 F.3d at 949 (when other

offense is drug-related, § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement is appropriate unless it is clearly

improbable that firearm was used in connection with that offense; appellate court

could not say it was clearly improbable that firearm found in house with

methamphetamine and other drug paraphernalia had potential 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 issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________