United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 98-3960
                                     ___________

United States of America,                 *
                                          *
             Appellee,                    *
                                          * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                  * District Court for the
                                          * Southern District of Iowa.
Randall Kirk Bell,                        *
                                          *          [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                   *
                                     ___________

                            Submitted: November 11, 1999

                                Filed: November 17, 1999
                                    ___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and HEANEY,
      Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

        In this appeal following remand, see United States v. Kime, 

(8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 

, and cert. denied, 

(1997), Randall Kirk
Bell challenges the district court’s1 denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on
a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) and (2). After careful review of the record
and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the evidence would permit a

      1
        The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
reasonable-minded jury to find Mr. Bell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of carrying
a firearm in relation to the marijuana-trafficking offense. See United States v. Barnes,

, 739 (8th Cir. 1998) (proof of any one of violations charged conjunctively
in indictment is sufficient). Assuming Mr. Bell’s related challenge to the gun-count
jury instruction is properly before us, given that he failed to raise this issue at trial or
in his first appeal, see United States v. Kress, 

, 373 (8th Cir. 1995), we also
reject this argument because Mr. Bell’s substantial rights were not affected, see United
States v. Aikens, 

, 454 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(1998). We
thus affirm the district court’s ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

       A true copy.

              Attest:

                      CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                            -2-