United States v. Chargois

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-41256
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRENNIS TREMAINE CHARGOIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1-99-CR-39-ALL
_________________________________________________________________
August 15, 2000
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Trennis Tremaine Chargois appeals his conviction following a
trial by jury of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
Chargois argues that the testimony of a confidential
government informant who participated in a controlled purchase of
cocaine base was insufficient to support his conviction because
that testimony was unreliable. The credibility of the confidential
informant’s testimony is a question solely for the jury. See
United States v. Millsaps, 157 F.3d 989, 994 (5th Cir. 1998). A
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
confidential informant’s testimony is thus sufficient to support a
conviction unless it is incredible or otherwise insubstantial on
its face. See United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir.
1993). We nevertheless need to review this conviction for plain
error only as Chargois failed to move for a judgment of acquittal
at either the close of the government’s case-in-chief or after the
close of the evidence portion of the trial. United States v.
Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1142(1998). A conviction may be reversed under the plain error
standard only if it resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Id.The testimony of the informant was not the only evidence
introduced at the trial. His testimony was supported and
corroborated by the testimony of a police officer and audio tapes.
Chargois has not shown that the informant's testimony was
incredible or otherwise insubstantial on its face or that his
conviction resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Gadison, 8 F.3d at 190; Parker, 133 F.3d at 328. Accordingly, he
has failed to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise.
The judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.
2