* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11264 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RODERICK SHEMONE HOWARD, also known as Big Rod Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-81-2
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roderick Shemone Howard appeals hisjury trial conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm in furtherance ofa drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Howard was also charged with, and pled guilty to, conspiring todistribute cocaine and possession with intent todistribute heroin. Among the several issues raised by Howard in hisappeal is his contention that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to showthat he possessed
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense rather than for purposesNo. 06-11264

2 of protecting his family. Howard concedes that he did not move for a judgment of acquittal in accordance with Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appropriate standard of review is therefore that this court must restrict its sufficiency review to determining whether Howard’s conviction resulted in a manifest miscarriage ofjustice, which results only if (1) the record is devoid ofevidence pointing toguilt, or (2) the evidence on a key element ofthe offense is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking. U nited States v. Smith, 203 F.3d 884, 887 (5th Cir. 2000). Howard admitted during his trial that he both stored and sold drugs out of his apartment where two loaded handguns were found by police during the execution ofa warrant for his arrest. He further admitted that he answered the officers’ knock on his door while holding a loaded 9 mm handgun that he kept under his mattress. The evidence established that Howard also kept a second, loaded handgun on a lower shelf in a kitchen cabinet, in close proximity to heroin, cocaine, and drug paraphenalia found in plain viewon his dining table. See United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2000). Howard has not shown that the record is devoid ofevidence pointing to his guilt
on the firearm charge, and he also has not shown that the evidence on a key element of that charge is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking. Therefore, Howard’s sufficiency challenge is unavailing. Howard next argues that the district court erred by failing to rule on two objections he made to comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument. However, the record shows that the trial judge responded to Howard’s objections by taking timely, corrective action to both instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct complained of by Howard. Furthermore, the strength of the evidence of defendant’s guilt on the firearm charge was considerable. Thus, Howard has not shown that the comments affected his substantial rights, or that the prosecutor’s conduct contri buted to the guiltyNo. 06-11264

3 verdict. See United Statesv. Bermea, 30F.3d 1539, 1563 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 390 (5th Cir. 1997). Howard’s third argument on appeal is that the district court erred by applying § 3C1.1 ofthe Sentencing Guidelines to enhance his base offense level
on the ground that he obstructed justice by denying that he possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record as a whole, and, thus, it did not clearly err in concluding that an enhancement for obstruction ofjustice was warranted. See United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 752 (5th Cir. 1999); Unite d States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1308-1309 (5th Cir. 1993). Howard’s final argument is that the district court erred in denying him a reduction in his base offense le vel for the two drug charges to which he pled guilty and for which he accepted responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Because Howard did not admit all of the conduct relevant to his offenses, the district court’s determination is not without foundation. See United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2003). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.