United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-3288

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joshua John Paarmann

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: November 14, 2023

Filed: January 4, 2024 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Josh J. Paarmann of five counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute 

50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

841(b)(1)(A), and 846; (2) possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A); (3) 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 
-2- 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); (4) felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and (5) possession with intent to 

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 

841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court1 sentenced him to 420 months in 

prison. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

Officers conducted a controlled buy of meth from Paarmann at his residence

in Davenport, Iowa. An audio and video device recorded the controlled buy to Tyler 

Storment, a confidential informant. He told officers that he saw firearms, drugs, and 

drug paraphernalia in the residence. Later that day, executing a search warrant, 

officers saw Paarmann flee from the residence. Four cooperating witnesses, 

including Storment, testified at trial. Two acknowledged cooperating for a reduced 

sentence. 

I.

 Paarmann argues that his counsel was ineffective by failing to pursue 

impeachment of the cooperating witnesses. At trial, outside the jury’s presence, the 

district court asked whether Paarmann’s counsel would cross examine about the 

mandatory minimum that some cooperating witnesses faced. Counsel replied that 

he was not going to “attack” the mandatory minimums of the cooperating witnesses 

because it’s “just not my strategy.” See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 681 (1984) (holding that “when counsel’s strategy represents a reasonable 

choice,” counsel need not investigate certain inquiries that they have chosen not to 

employ at trial). 

Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are ordinarily deferred to 28 U.S.C. §

2255 proceedings, because they normally involve facts outside the record. United 

States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Because the record here is 

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa. 
-3- 

not fully developed, consideration of Paarmann’s ineffective assistance claim is 

deferred to collateral proceedings. 

II.

 Paarmann asserts there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the 

crime of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The jury had to 

find that (1) Paarmann committed one of the drug crimes charged; (2) Paarmann 

knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) there was a nexus between the firearm and 

the drug crime. See United States v. Druger, 920 F.3d 567, 570 (8th Cir. 2019). 

There was sufficient evidence of guilt here. Storment testified that during the 

controlled buy, there “were a couple firearms”—a clip-fed gun and a revolver—on 

the couch in the living room where Paarmann resided. The video showed Paarmann 

on that couch, weighing out the meth for distribution. Right before making the buy, 

Storment saw Paarmann and two others using meth. When Paarmann fled the 

apartment during the execution of the search warrant, officers recovered 3.25 pounds 

of meth; $6,050 in cash; drug paraphernalia; a .38 special Ruger LCR revolver; one 

round of .38 special ammunition; 10 rounds of .380 ammunition; a gun cleaner; 

digital scales; and packaging material. Storment testified that Paarmann, months 

before the controlled buy, had shown him a revolver like the one found.

 Cooperating witness Jared M. Ricklefs testified he had observed Paarmann in 

possession of a revolver “one or two times.” Specifically, he saw a revolver on 

Paarmann’s hip while they were using drugs. Cooperating witness Keith Hansen 

testified that three months after the controlled buy, he helped Paarmann conceal 

meth in a truck while Paarmann was carrying a firearm. 

 “When reviewing a claim regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting a 

criminal conviction, the Court conducts a de novo review, viewing evidence in the 

light most favorable to the government, resolving conflicts in the government’s 

favor, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict.” United 
-4- 

States v. Williams, 910 F.3d 1084, 1090 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The court will reverse “only if no reasonable jury could have found the 

accused guilty.” United States v. Flying By, 511 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2007). As 

Paarmann acknowledges, on “numerous occasions” this court has “upheld jury 

verdicts based solely on the testimony of cooperating witnesses.” United States v. 

Bradley, 643 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2011). 

Here, Storment’s testimony—that the firearm was in close proximity to 

Paarmann during the sale of meth—was sufficient for the jury to infer that his

possession of the firearm facilitated that drug crime. See United States v. RushRichardson, 574 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that the jury may infer that 

the defendant’s possession of a firearm facilitated a drug crime based on evidence 

indicating that the firearm “was used for protection, was kept near the drugs, or was

in close proximity to the defendant during drug transactions”). 

This court does not weigh the evidence or witness credibility as the jury has

“the sole responsibility to resolve conflicts or contradictions in testimony.” United 

States v. Wiest, 596 F.3d 906, 910 (8th Cir. 2010). The evidence was sufficient for 

the jury to convict Paarmann of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug 

trafficking crime. 

* * * * * * * 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________