## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1909

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Mitchell Dean Cree, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 28, 1998 Filed: February 2, 1999

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
On the morning of June 8, 1997, Mitchell Dean Cree, an American Indian , confronted his wife, who was in the process of obtaining a divorce, in front of he r home on I ndian trust land in North Dakota. Cree dragged his wife from her car an d ki ckedand beat her repeatedly. Brandishing a knife, Cree forced her into th e pa ssenger side of her car and abducted her at knife point to an abandoned house no t on Indian lands, where he ha ndcuffed and raped her before returning her to her house. Cree’s wife was treated for injuries including a cut on her face that required seventeen stitches and left a scar still visible at Cree’s trial seven months later, a broken tooth that requir ed extraction, and bruises all over her body. A jury convicted Cree o f kidnapping, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and interstate domestic violenceThe HONORABLE PATRICK A. CONMY, United States District Judge for 1 the District of North Dakota. -2- in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6), 1153, 1201(a)(2), and 2261(a), (b). Cre e appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

Cree a ttacks his conviction and sentence on the ground that his trial counse l provided ineffective assistance in preparing for and conducting the trial and sentencing hearing. We agree with the government that the record on direct appeal is no t sufficiently developed to address these issues. Accordingly, they must be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Santana , 150 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 1998).

In determ ining Cree’s sentence, the district court first grouped his thre e 1 offens es and then determined his base offense level based upon the most seriou s offens e, kidnapping. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. When another offense is committe d durin g a kidnapping, the sentencing court applies the offense section appropriate fo r the other offense if it is higher than 23, the base offense level for kidnapping. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(7)(A). Here, the court began with the base offense level fo r criminalsexual abuse, which is 27. See U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1; United States v. Barnett , 5 F.3d 795, 798-800 & n.6 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1137 (1994). Th e court ad ded a four-level increase for use or display of a dangerous weapon, se e U.S.S.G. § 2A 3.1(b)(1) (1997); a four-level increase because the scar on the victim’s face was a permanent bodily injury, see U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(4)(A); and a four-level increase because of the abduction, see U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(5). The offense level of 39 r esulted in a Guidelines sentencing range of 262 to 327 months. The court sentenced Cree to 262 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
On appeal, Cree first argues that the base offense level for criminal sexual abuse do es not apply because the federal government had no jurisdiction over the sexua l assault he committed outside of Indian country. However, the Guidelines specifically-3-

dir ectthe sentencing court to consider state and local offenses when applyin g § 2A4.1(b)(7). SeeU.S.S.G. § 2A4.1, comment. (backg’d.); United States v. Pollard , 986 F.2d 44, 46-47 (3d Cir.), cert. denied , 508 U .S. 956 (1997). Cree next argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the four-level increases for use of a dangerous weapon an d for inflicting a permanent injury. We disagree. Based upon the victim’s testimony, the district court found “that a weapon was in fact used and that it was used to cut the victim on the face and that there is a result from that cut which fits th e permane nce requirements of the guidelines, particularly on the face of a relativel y you ng woman.” These findings are not clearly erroneous. See United States v

. Saknikent , 30 F.3d 1012, 1013 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1 (h)) (defining “[p]ermanent or life-threatening bodily injury” to include “an obvious disfigurement that is likely to be permanent”).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

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