
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry McVale WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 03-50747, 03-50748
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 23, 2003.
    
      Ellen A. Lockwood, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David Glenn Rogers, Brockett & Lindemood, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Terry McVale Williams (Williams) appeals his convictions for two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base. Williams contends that he was convicted on insufficient evidence because there was no evidence to corroborate his confession. Williams further contends that because the evidence was insufficient to convict him, the evidence was also insufficient to support the revocation of his supervised release.

Because Williams moved for a judgment of acquittal in the district court, we review the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether, considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir.2000). The extrinsic evidence, which included the testimony of several surveillance officers, was sufficient to corroborate Williams’s confession, and the evidence as a whole supports his convictions. See United States v. Garth, 773 F.2d 1469, 1479 (5th Cir.1985). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Williams’s supervised release based on his convictions for aiding and abetting. See United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Williams’s convictions and the revocation of his supervised release are AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     