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,

(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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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,

(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,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(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,

; Parker,

. 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