## 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Submitted: November 14, 2023 Filed: January 4, 202 4 [Unpublished]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 court 1 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

. A n 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 coun se l was ineffective by failing to pursue impeachment of the cooperating witnesses. At trial, outside the jury’s presence, t he
d istrict c ourt asked whether P aarman n’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 fire arm 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 other s using meth. W hen Paarmann fled the apartment during the execution of the search warrant , o fficers recovered 3.25 pounds
of meth ; $6,050 in cash ; dr ug 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 show n him a revolver like the one found.

C ooperating 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 us ing 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 C ourt 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. William s , 910 F.3d 1084, 1090 (8th Cir. 201 8) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. Th e 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 , o n “ numerous occasion s” this c ourt ha s “ 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 testimon y— 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. Rush

Richardson , 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 h as “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.

______________________________