The Honorable Ro bert G. Renner, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3609

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Allen Henry McKinney, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 15, 1998 Filed: April 17, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this appeal following resentencing, Allen Henry McKinney challe nges the 168- month sentence imposed by the district court. Counsel has moved to withdraw and has 1 filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging th e district court & s application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1 ) (firearms enhancement) and the denial of Mr. McKinney & s motion for substitute counsel-2-

on resentencing; and raising challenges to Mr. McKinney & s unde rlying convictions. Mr. McKinney has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising trial errors.
Following a jury trial, Mr. Mc Kinney was convicted of numerous drug offenses. Subsequent

to our affirmance of those convictions in United States v. McKinney , 7 9 F.3d 105, 107 (8th Cir. 1 996) ( McKinney I ), the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the prior opinion, and remanded Mr. McKinney & s case for plain error review of hi s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm conviction. See McKinney v. United States , 117 S. Ct. 1816 (1997). On remand, after briefly summarizing the evidence related to the section 924(c) charge, we concluded that the district court committed plain error in submitting the firearm charge to the jury, as there was insufficient evidence Mr

. McKinney “used” or “carried” the firearms in relation to his drug offenses. See United States v. McKinney , 120 F.3d 132, 133-34 (8th Cir. 1997) ( McKinney II ). I n conclusion, we noted that the seizure of the firea rms was not without legal significance, and that section 2D1. 1(b)(1) provided an enhancement for the possession of a weapon in the course of a drug-trafficking off ense; we thus remanded this case for resentencing in acc ordance with our opinion. On remand, over Mr. McKinney & s objection, th e district court applied the firearm enhancement, and sentenced Mr. McKinney to 168- months imprisonment.

Trial evidence, as recounted in our opinions in McKinney I and McKinney II , demonstrated that

the firearms were sufficiently connected with Mr. McKinney & s drug offenses to warr ant the section 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. We thus find no clear error in the district court & s application of the enhancement. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. § 2D1.1(b)(1) & comment. 3 (1997) (enhanc ement applied unless “it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense”); United S tates v. Vaughn , 111 F.3d 610, 616 (8th Cir. 1 997) (standard of review); United States v. Betz , 82 F.3d 205, 210-11 (8th Cir. 1996) (no clear error w here firearms were found in residence and marijuana found in shed, as they were “found on premises from which Betz conducted drug-related activities where they were readily accessible to Betz”);-3-

United States v. Hiveley , 61 F.3d 1 358, 1362-63 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (no clear
error where guns were seized from defendant & s mobile home, and 1100 pounds o f marijuana was seized from a trailer elsewhere on the property). The cases cited by Mr. McKinney- -inwhich the government conceded there was no evidence tying th e weapons to the drugs-- are distinguishable.

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. McKinney & s request for substitution o f counsel for resentencing or his concomitant request for a continuance. See United States v . Grady , 997 F.2d 421, 423-24 (8th Cir.) (standard of review; defendant must show “justifiable dissatisfaction with appointe d counsel,” including conflict of interest, complete breakdown in communication, o r irreconcilable conflict (quoted case omitted)), cert denied , 510 U.S. 958 (1993). We declin e to address Mr. McKinney & s remaining claims--which were addressed in Mr

. McKi nney & s prior appeal, could have been so addressed, or which are mor e appropriately addressed in collateral proceeding. See United States v. Bartsh , 69 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (“law of the case” doctrine and mandate rule prohibi t relitigation of settled issue); United States v. Kress , 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (court need not consider matters that defendant could have raised in prior appeal, but didnot); see also United States v. Reyna-Segovia , 125 F.3d 645, 646 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (ineffective-assistance claims should be raised collaterally rather than on direct appeal).

We have reviewed the record for any nonfrivolous issues in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and find none.
Accordingly, the judgment of th e district court is affirmed, and counsel & s motion to withdraw is granted.-4-

A true copy.

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