United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-3329
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Northern District of Iowa.
Percy LeNeal Harrell,                   *
                                        *   [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: June 7, 2007
                                Filed: June 11, 2007
                                 ___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Percy Harrell pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A). At sentencing, over Harrell’s objection, the district court1
applied a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon under
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and sentenced Harrell to 168 months in prison and 5 years of
supervised release. He appeals, contesting the two-level enhancement. Reviewing the



      1
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
district court’s finding for clear error, see United States v. Braggs, 

, 904
(8th Cir. 2003), we affirm.

       The district court concluded that, because two handguns and $7,700 in admitted
drug proceeds were found in Harrell’s house, it was not clearly improbable that there
was a nexus between the guns and drug activities; the court also noted the presence
of a small amount of crack cocaine in the house plus drug-packaging paraphernalia
in the detached garage. The court did not clearly err in imposing the enhancement.
See Brown v. United States, 

, 533 (8th Cir. 1999) (“close proximity of
firearms and ‘drug money’ can give rise to an inference that the firearms are present
to protect the money and drugs, which is a nexus sufficient to support an enhancement
under 2D1.1(b)(1)”); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3) (clearly improbable
standard).

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                          -2-