*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

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
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

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 twolevel 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
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

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.