___________

No. 96-3257 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Edward J. Woods, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 28, 1997

Filed: March 17, 1997 ___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Edward J. Woods appeals the 72-month sentence imposed by the district 1 court after he pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon, and a person previously committed to a mental institution, in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2). Woods challenges the two- level enhancement he received for possessing a destructive device, under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(3) (1995).

We do not believe the district court clearly erred in finding Woods possessed the essential components and the intent to make a destructive device. See United States v. Williams, 97 F.3d 240, 243 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). At sentencing, a special agent for the state fire marshal’s office testified that Woods had

1 The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. the necessary materials to manufacture an explosive device, and could easily have done so; and the government introduced evidence that Woods had made bombs in the past, intended to do so in the future, and owned books detailing how to make bombs. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1, comment. (n.4)(“destructive device” includes combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting device into destructive device such as explosive or incendiary bomb); cf. United States v. Holden, 61 F.3d 858, 860 (1st Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (unassembled land mine constituted “destructive device” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3); defendant had all necessary components, and no evidence he could not have readily constructed device). We therefore conclude the district court properly applied the enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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

-2-