UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-60607
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
ANDY CHARLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi
July 20, 1998
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andy Charles was convicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, conspiracy
to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute. He appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.
First, Charles argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
obtained by narcotics officers when they executed a search warrant at the “Hy-N-Dry Mini Storage”
facility in Jackson, Mississippi. Charles argues that the search warrant was not supported by probable
*
Under 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
cause.2 We disagree. A confidential informant notified the narcotics officers of drug trafficking
activities involving Charles and the storage facility. The officers obtained corroboration of the
informant’s statements through surveillance and the use of a narcotics-sniffing dog. The search
warrant was supported by probable cause.3
Next, Charles argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We
disagree. Charles was caught “red-handed”. Charles drove Morias Josephs, his coconspirator, to the
storage facility and was arrested with Josephs in the facility containing drugs, drug paraphernalia, and
a loaded assault rifle. Charles also possessed keys to another storage unit that contained drugs.
From this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Charles was engaged in a conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The jury could also conclude that Charles was guilty
of the substantive offense of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting that
offense.4
Charles also argues that the magistrate judge erred by denying his motion for severance and
his motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant used by the officers. Charles did not
appeal these rulings to the district court. We do not have jurisdiction to hear these issues.5
Finally, Charles argues that the district court erred during sentencing by increasing his base
2
Probable cause to support a search warrant is determined under the totality of the
circumstances. United States v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 578-9 (5th Cir. 1994).
3
See Id.
4
We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction in the light most
favorable to the verdict. If a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty, the
conviction must be upheld. United States v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479, 1484 (5th Cir. 1995).
5
See Boren v. N.L. Indus., Inc., 889 F.2d 1463, 1465 (5th Cir. 1989).
2
offense level by two under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (b) (1) because Charles did not possess a firearm during
the drug-trafficking offense. The district court’s decision to increase a defendant’s sentence level
under § 2D1.1 (b) (1) is a factual finding that we review for clear error.6 In the present case, there
is ample evidence to support the increase. The officers found one firearm in the car driven by Charles
and another in the storage facility where Charles was arrested. Even if these firearms belonged to
Joseph as Charles alleges, Charles can still be held accountable for them since Joseph’s possession
of the firearms was reasonably foreseeable.7 The district court did not err.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
6
United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 1997).
7
United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 574 (5th Cir. 1997).
3