Opinion ID: 553755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: alan moon

Text: 9 Alan Moon was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, distribution of cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and the use of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 846 and 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(2). On appeal, Moon argues that the district court erred in finding sufficient evidence upon which to predicate the gun charge, in finding probable cause to support the warrants issued to search Moon's home and business, and in calculating the amount of cocaine involved pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. 10 Moon contends that although the evidence presented at trial established his possession of a firearm on November 30, 1988, no evidence exists to tie that possession with any drug trafficking crime because the cocaine negotiations broke while the gun was still in the undercover officer's vehicle. Normally, upon a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is to examine the record to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). However, Moon's failure to raise a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal further limits this Court's inquiry to whether a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred. United States v. Swidan, 888 F.2d 1076, 1080 (6th Cir.1989). Given our holdings in United States v. Acosta-Cazares, 878 F.2d 945 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 255 (1989), and United States v. McGhee, 882 F.2d 1095, 1099 (6th Cir.1989), we cannot find that Moon has met his burden on appeal. 11 Moon also asserts that the district court erred in finding probable cause to allow officers to obtain warrants to search his home and business, and further claims no reasonable basis existed for officers to rely on these warrants. We disagree. This court reviews the district court's finding of probable cause under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Pepple, 707 F.2d 261 (6th Cir.1983). Given the information supplied by the unnamed informant, and the corroborating information gathered through the lengthy undercover operation, we cannot find the district court erred in finding probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 244 (1983). 12 Finally, Moon contends that the district court erred in calculating the amount of cocaine involved when applying the sentencing guidelines. The crux of Moon's argument is that he did not intend to produce, and was not reasonably able to produce, the cocaine for the uncompleted transactions. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 2D1.4. The district court found otherwise; this Court must uphold that finding absent clear error. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1342(e). Nothing in record or the briefs supports a finding of clear error. Therefore, Moon has failed to meet his burden in attempting to prove that he neither intended to produce nor was reasonably able to produce the negotiated amounts of cocaine. United States v. Rodriguez, 896 F.2d 1031, 1033 (6th Cir.1990). 13 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded as to Thomas Thompson, and affirmed as to Gary Thompson and Alan Moon.