The H onorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4013

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Jesse Ball, also known as Junior, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 23, 1997 Filed: September 29, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Jesse Ball appeals his 170-month sentence imposed by the district court, 1 followin g a remand for resentencing in United States v. Ball , 90 F.3d 260 (8th Cir

. 1996). His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and was granted leave to withdraw. Ball has filed a supplemental pro se brief. W e affirm.-2-

Ajury convicted Ball of six drug trafficking and firearms offenses. In his first appeal, he challenged the district court & s denial of his motion to suppress and tw o firearms convictions. We reversed the firearms convictions under Bailey v. Unite d States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), affirmed the remaining convictions, and remanded for resentencing. See Ball , 90 F.3d at 261.

On resentencing, the district court then sentenced Ball to 170 month s imprisonment

and 4 years of supervised release, imposing a 2-level enhancement for possession of a firearm, see U.S. Sentencing Gu idelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1995), and a 2-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1995). On appeal, Ball argues the district court & s assessment of both enhancements was clearly erroneous.

Section 2D1.1(b)(1) “reflects the increased danger of violence when dru g trafficker s possess weapons,” and the enhancement “should be applied if the weapon
was presen t, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with th e offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3) (1995). The government

has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence both that the weapon was present and that it is probable the weapon was connected w ith the drug charge. S ee United States v. Richmond , 37 F.3d 418, 419-20 (8th Cir. 1994), cert

. denied , 513 U.S. 1178 (1995). According to trial evidence, in the residence Bal l occupied, detectives found on one occasion guns in the living room and in the kitchen next to crack cocain e and drug paraphernalia, and on another occasion, crack cocaine in the front room and guns in a closet and on the pool table. Based on this evidence, the district court did not clearly e rr in assessing the enhancement. See id. (standard of revi ew; affirming enhancement where firearms and drugs were found in defendant & s apartment).
Upon our careful review of the record, we also conclude that the district court did not err by imposing the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice because-3-

the district court & s finding that Ball committed perjury during his tria l testimony was not clearly erroneous. See Unite d States v. Patino-Rojas , 974 F.2d 94, 96 (8th Cir. 1992) (pe r curiam) (standard of review), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 974 (1993). Th e obstruction-of-justice enhancement may be imposed when “ # there is a strong findin g of perjury based on the trial judge & s independent evaluation of the defendant & s testimony & at trial.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, the district court ma de an independent finding that Ball committed perjury when Ball spec ifically denied a great portion of the police detectives & testimony. See United States v. Turk , 21 F.3d 309, 313 (8th Cir

. 1994) (affirming U.S. Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 enhancement based on per jury where court examined defendant & s testimony and concluded she committed perjur y by denying involvement in offense).

We need not consider the additional arguments Ball raised in his supplemental pro se brief be cause he could have raised them in his first direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Kr ess , 58 F.3d 370, 373-74 (8th Cir. 1995). Finally, Ball & s claims of ineffective assista

nce of counsel are more appropriately resolved in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. See United States v. Logan , 49 F.3d 352, 361 (8th Cir. 1995).
Having car efully reviewed the record, we find no other nonfrivolous issue fo r 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

.