Odies M. Cole, Jr. (Cole) appeals the district court’s 2 admission of his confession and a statement by the victim into evidence. Cole also claims that the government produced insufficient evidence to support the verdict. In a separate pro se brief, Cole makes several additional allegations, which include grand juror misconduct, a lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the commerce clause, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048, 1054 (8th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, Cole’s conviction must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Sandifer, 188 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 1999) (the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and reversing only if the jury must have had a reasonable doubt concerning one of the essential elements of the crime.) Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court’s admission of the confession and statement of the victim into evidence was not an abuse of discretion. We also conclude that substantial evidence did exist to support the conviction.

As for the separate pro se brief, we conclude that Cole’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be presented in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995). The remaining claims of Cole’s pro se brief are dismissed as frivolous. Accordingly, without further discussion, we affirm Cole’s conviction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.