The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3730

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 Donald Gene Crouse, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant.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

___________ Submitted: April 3, 1998 Filed: April 9, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Aftera jury convicted Donald Gene Crouse of possessing with intent t o dis tribute approximately 111.2 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1), the district court sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment and eigh t 1 years su pervised release. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v

. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which counsel argues that the evidence wa s insufficie nt

to convict Crouse, and that the district court misapplied the 21 U.S.C

. § 841(b)(1)(B) sentence-enhancement provision. We disagree and affirm.-2-

In evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we assume th e government & s evidence was truth ful and valid, and we give the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See United States v. Watson , 952 F.2d 982, 987 (8th Cir. 19 91), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 994 (1992). As “the evidence need not be so powerful as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence . . . or to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt,” we will reverse a jury & s finding of guilt only if a rational jury would have had to “reasonably . . . doubt the existence of an eleme nt of a charged crime.” Id. At trial, the gov ernment presented evidence that a law enforcement officer saw Crouse hide a brown sack behind an air-conditioning unit at a gas station; and that , when a second officer looked behind the unit, he found an amount of methamphetamine which was indicative of distribution, along with scales and syringes. This evidence was sufficien t to show Crouse knowingly possessed the methamphetamine with intent t o distribute, see United States v. Hunter , 95 F.3d 14, 16 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Schu bel , 912 F.2d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 1990) (inference of intent to distribut e permissible where defendant possessed at least 49 grams of methamphetamine, scales, and packaging materials, among other things), notwithstanding the lack of incriminating fingerprint evidence, cf. United States v. White , 81 F.3d 80, 82 (8th C ir. 1996) (holding evidence sufficient to sustain defendant & s conviction for possession of drugs, despite lack of fingerprint evidence, where witness tes tified he saw defendant throw down bag containing drugs during pursuit).
We also c onclude that the district court did not err in enhancing Crouse & s sentence under section 841(b )(1)(B). Cf. United States v. Baca-Valenzuela , 118 F.3d 1223, 1227 (8th Cir. 1997) (district court & s interpretation of statute is subject to d e novo review; reviewing de novo challenge to district court & s ruli ng as matter of law that defe ndant & s drug offense was aggravated felony within purview of Immigration an d Nationalit y Act). Section 841(a)(1) provides that it is unlawful to “manufacture , distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled sub stance,” and section 841(b)(1)(B) provides for sentence enhancement-3-

if a def endant committed such an offense after a prior conviction for a “felony dru g offense.” T he prior conviction in Crouse & s case was one for aiding and abetting th e distribution of methamphetamine.
Contrar y to the argument raised in counsel & s brief, an aiding-and-abettin g c o nviction is a prior “felony drug offense” for purposes of section 841(b)(1)(B) even thoughit is not enumerated in section 841(a)(1). A person who aids and abets th e manuf acture and distribution of drugs is punishable under the provisions of sectio n 841(b). See18 U.S.C. § 2(a); United States v. Pos ters # N & Things, Ltd. , 969 F.2d 652, 662 (8th C ir. 1992), aff & d , 511 U.S. 513 (1994). Thus, just as aiding and abettin g cons titutes a crime punishable under section 841(b)--even though it is not a n enumerated offense in section 841(a)--a prior aiding-and-abetting con viction constitutes a prior “felony drug offense” for purposes of applying t he section 841(b) enhancement. Having reviewed

the record, we find no other nonfrivolous issues. 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.