IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-50953
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BILL WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-97-CR-13-1
_________________________________________________________________
July 27, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bill Williams, Jr., appeals his jury trial convictions for two
counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and one
count of maintaining a residence for the purpose of distributing
cocaine base. Williams did not renew his motion for a directed
verdict of acquittal at the close of the government’s evidence and
review is limited to whether there has been a manifest miscarriage
of justice. United States v. Shannon, 21 F.3d 77, 83 (5th Cir.
1994). Williams’s knowing possession of cocaine base and knowing
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
use of his residence to store cocaine base were clearly supported
by the record. Williams’s intent to distribute the drugs may be
inferred from the drug quantity, packaging, presence of drug
paraphernalia that was inconsistent with personal use, and presence
of a loaded firearm in close physical proximity to the drugs. See
United States v. Hunt, 129 F.3d 739, 742 (5th Cir. 1997).
The district court did not commit plain error in failing to
find that count 3 and count 4 merged. See United States v.
Callwood, 66 F.3d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v.
Church, 970 F.2d 401, 407-408 (7th Cir. 1992); cf. United States v.
Cooper, 966 F.2d 936, 939 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court did
not abuse its discretion in refusing to reveal the name of the
confidential informant, see United States v. Wilson, 77 F.3d 105,
111-112 (5th Cir. 1996), nor did it abuse its discretion in
admitting background evidence regarding information Fletcher
received from an informant about drug trafficking at Williams’s
residence. See United States v. Carillo, 20 F.3d 617, 619 (5th
Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to give a jury instruction regarding the lesser included
offense of simple possession because it concluded that a rational
jury could not find Williams guilty of the lesser offense yet
acquit him of the greater offense. See United States v. Harrison,
55 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
A F F I R M E D.
3