United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 6, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30632
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR J. GOINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(02-CR-20041-2)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Arthur J. Goins appeals his conviction for
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The government
challenges our jurisdiction, arguing that the district court abused
its discretion in granting Goins an extension of time on the
grounds of excusable neglect under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
government also contends that, even with the extension of time,
Goins’s notice of appeal was untimely.
After considering the relevant factors, we have determined
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an
extension of time based on excusable neglect. See Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395
(1993); United States v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 44 (5th Cir. 1995). We
have further determined that, given the court’s extension of time,
Goins’s notice of appeal was timely filed. See United States v.
Miller, 666 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1982); Deloney v. Estelle, 661
F.2d 1061, 1063 (5th Cir. 1981). We therefore have jurisdiction to
hear Goins’s appeal.
Goins contends that the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He argues that the
evidence shows merely that he legally possessed loaded firearms in
his home, but not that he did so in furtherance of any drug
trafficking crimes.
The evidence adduced at trial was that loaded semi-automatic
weapons were found in the same closet as a bag containing
approximately 196 grams of marijuana, and that crack cocaine and
scales for weighing narcotics were found in another part of the
small home. Given the proximity of the firearms to illegal drugs
and the presence of scales used in drug trafficking, and viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational
juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Goins
2
possessed the firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
See United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 410-11
(5th Cir. 2000).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3