United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3947

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Jimmy A. Walker, * * Appellant. *

___________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the No. 96-4218 Eastern District of Missouri.

___________ [UNPUBLISHED] Jimmy A. Walker, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 26, 1997 Filed: July 7, 1997

___________The Hon orable George F. Gunn, United States District Judge for the Easter n 1 District of Missouri. -2- Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jimmy A. Walker challenges the 78-month sentence imposed by the distric t court on resentencing for a drug o ffense after his firearm conviction had been vacated 1 in light of Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501, 506 (1995). We affirm.

Walker argues that the district court clearly erred when it imposed a two-level enhancement und er U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing firea rms because the government failed to prove the firearms discovered in hi s apartment were connected to his drug offense. We disagree. Walker was using hi s residence to distribute crack and powder cocaine, and five firearms ( four of which were loaded) were found behind a couch in his living room. See United States v. Williams , 10 F.3d 590, 595-96 (8th Cir. 1993) (where residence was used for drug dealing , sufficien t nexus existed between weapon found in second-floor bedroom and drug s found in first-floor kitchen); United States v . Hammer , 3 F.3d 266, 270 (8th Cir. 1993) (presence of guns in house where drugs were packaged and sold is sufficient), cert

. denied , 510 U.S. 1139 (1994).

Wa lker also argues that the district court improperly sentenced him fo r possessing cocaine base, as the government failed to prove that the substance seized from his apartment was crack cocaine. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 2D1.1(c), Note (D) (1995) (defining “cocaine base” as “crack,” which in turn i s defined as “the street name for a form of cocaine base, usually prepared by processing cocaine hydrochloride and sodium bicarbonate, and usually appearing in a lumpy , rocklike form”); id. App. C, amend. 487 (stating that “for ms of cocaine base other than-3-

crack ( e.g. , coca paste . . .) will be treated as cocaine”). We conclude, however, that the district court did not clearly err in determining the government had proved by a prepond erance of the evidence that the drug at issue was crack. See United States v. Williams , 97 F.3d 240, 243 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). A police office r op inedat Walker’s resentencing hearing that a rocklike substance discovered i n Walker’s apartment was crack, a lab report identified the substance as cocaine base,
an d Walker did not introduce evidence to the contrary. See United States v. Wilson , 103 F.3d 1402, 1407 (8th Ci r. 1997); United States v. Williams , 982 F.2d 1209, 1212 (8th Cir. 1992). The court’s finding is also supported by Walker’s assent at his plea hea ring to the court’s repeated references to the drug offense as involving “crac k cocaine.” See United States v. Abdul , No. 96-3419, 1997 WL 311572, at *2 (7th Cir. June 10, 1997) (Lay, J., sitting by designation).

Walker has also filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging the district court’ s denia lof his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on his previous counsel’ s allege d refusal to file a notice of appeal after his original sentencing. We note tha t Walker appears to have abandoned this claim on appeal. In any event, we conclude the distri ctcourt’s finding that Walker agreed not to appeal after consulting with hi s pr evious counsel is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Adipietro , 983 F.2 d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993).
The judgments are affirmed.
A true copy.

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