Court Opinion

ID: 9915073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 17:00:32.10083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:11.688226
License: Public Domain

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                                  [Unpublished]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
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.
                                      -2-
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
                                         -3-
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. 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 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.
                      ______________________________

                                         -4-