The Ho norable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3691

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Gregory Griggs, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 20, 1998 Filed: April 24, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Aftera j ury convicted Gregory Griggs of aiding and abetting the robbery of a post office , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114, the district court sentenced him to 120 1 months imprisonment and three years supervis ed release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Mr. Griggs has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.-2-

The And ers brief contains a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. I n evaluating such a claim, we assume the government & s evidence was truthful and valid, giving the government the benefit of all reasonab le inferences, and will reverse a jury & s finding o f guilt only if a rational jury would have had to “reasonably . . . doubt th e existence of an element of a charged crime.” See United States v. Watson , 952 F.2d 982, 987 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 994 (1992). At trial, Eric Earnest and Ronald M itchell--Mr. Griggs & s half-bothers, who also participated in the robbery-

- test ified that the three used Mr. Griggs & s manual-transmission car to drive to the post office an d that Mr. Griggs acted as the lookout and the getaway driver; they als o te stifiedto the events of the robbery. Two citizens who entered the post office at separate times during th e robbery testified that two men with guns tied them up inside the facility. One victim identified a picture of Griggs & s car as looking similar to a car he saw outside the facility, and testified that someone in the car had honked the horn as he entered the post office. Both victims indicated that Mr. Griggs was not one of the robbers inside the post office. We conclude this evidence was sufficient to support the jury & s verdict. See18 U.S.C . §§ 2114(a), 2; United States v. Sobrilski , 127 F.3d 669, 677 (8th Cir. 1997) (elements of aiding and abetting), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1093 and 1175 (1998). We also reject Mr. Griggs & s p ro se arguments. First, we decline to address Mr. Gri ggs & s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, as they are more appropriatel y addre ssed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where a record can be fully developed

. See United States v. Mitchell , No. 96-3496, 1998 WL 65546, at * 1 (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 1998). Next, we reject Mr. Griggs & s claim that the government failed to prov e “territorial jurisdiction” over him, as robbing a post office is a federal crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a). Mr. Griggs & s third argument, which we review for plain error as he failed to raise the issue below, is his trial was tainted by the use of Mr. Mitchell & s testimony that differed from his testimony during Mr. Griggs & s first hung-jury trial on the same-3-

offense. See United States v. Peak , 856 F.2d 825, 830-31 (7th Cir.) (where defendants did not point out pos sible perjured testimony during trial despite ability to detect such perjur yand also did not include such issue as ground for new trial, appellate court would review argument concerning use of testimony only for plain error), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 969 (1988); United States v. Montanye , 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) ( defining plain error). Even assuming as true that Mr. Mitchell perjure d himsel f during the second trial when he testified he had never driven a manual

tr ansmission car, and that the government was aware of the perjury, we conclude the perjured testimony did not have a reasonable likelihood o f affecting the jury & s decision. See United States v. Tierney , 947 F.3d 854, 860-61 (8th Cir. 1991). Mr. Griggs & s last argument is that testimony regarding his participation in a prior bank robbery was improper Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) character evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (prior bad acts may be admitted to demonstrate motive , oppor tunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake o r accident). As Mr. Griggs did not object at trial , we also review this argument for plain er ror, and find none: even assuming the evidence was improper, the government & s evidence was sufficient to sup port the jury & s verdict without the challenged testimony. See Fed. R. C rim. P. 52(b); United States v. Abrams , 108 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir

. 1997) (where defendant fai led to object to testimony at trial, this court reviews claims relat ing thereto for plain error; holding admission of prejudicial statements neithe r deprived defendant of fair trial nor seriously affected fairness or integrity of proceeding because government & s case was not solely dependent on prejudicial testimony). Having reviewed the record, we fin d no other non-frivolous issues. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We deny Mr. Griggs & s motion for a transcript of his first trial.-4-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.