UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-40506
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
NOEL HANCOCK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(1:96-CR-115-1)
March 5, 1998
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Noel Hancock pleaded guilty to one count of a multi-count
indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute
crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district
court imposed a 60-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a
three-year period of supervised release. In calculating the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
sentence, the district court adopted, over Hancock’s objections,
the presentence report, which held Hancock accountable for having
trafficked in 4.45 grams of crack cocaine. Hancock alleges two
points of error on appeal: (1) the district court improperly
calculated the drug quantity attributable to him, and (2) the
district court improperly enhanced his sentence under § 2D1.1(b)(1)
of the Sentencing Guidelines, a provision which authorizes a two-
level increase in a defendant’s offense level whenever the
defendant possesses a firearm in a crime involving the trafficking
or possession of drugs. Neither contention has merit. We affirm.
The evidence showed that Hancock and several codefendants
participated in a series of drug transactions spanning a six-week
period in 1996. The evidence also showed that Hancock sold a .38
caliber revolver to a confidential informant during one of the
transactions. The district court found that because Hancock pooled
crack with his codefendants for the purpose of filling orders, he
had engaged in a jointly undertaken criminal activity. Hancock,
however, argues that the district court improperly held him
accountable for the amounts of crack contributed by his
codefendants. We have carefully reviewed the evidence, and
conclude that the district court did not commit clear error in
attributing 4.45 grams of crack to Hancock.2
2
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant’s guideline
range should be based on “all acts and omissions committed, aided,
abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or wilfully
caused by the defendant, or in the case of a jointly undertaken
2
As for Hancock’s second assignment of error, we conclude that
the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Hancock
sold a firearm to a confidential informant, and the evidence
reveals the requisite nexus between the firearm and the drug
trafficking offense for which he stands convicted.3
AFFIRMED.
criminal activity, all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of
others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity
that occurred during commission of the offense of conviction.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B). See also United States v.
Bryant, 991 F.2d 171, 177 (5th Cir. 1993) (relevant conduct
includes quantities of drugs that were part of the same course of
conduct or part of a common scheme or plan).
3
See United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 285 (5th Cir.
1997).
3