Full Opinion

Case: 25-60590 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-60590 October 29, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Afrika Roshawn Seals, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:24-CR-51-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Richman, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Afrika Roshawn Seals appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment and the sentence imposed following his guilty plea. He raises three arguments: (1) the district court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the indictment because his constitutional rights were violated when he was not taken before a magistrate judge within 48 hours of his arrest for a preliminary hearing; (2) the district court erred in applying three two-level * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-60590 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2026 No. 25-60590 enhancements under U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(1), (12), and 3C1.1, to his base offense level; and (3) his within-guidelines sentence of 292 months of imprisonment is substantively unreasonable. Regarding his first argument, it fails because the indictment established probable cause, thereby obviating the need for a preliminary hearing. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 n.19 (1975); 18 U.S.C. § 3060(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(a)(2). As for his sentence enhancement arguments, the district court did not clearly err because the record reflects (1) a shotgun with a magazine was found in the same residence as three kilograms of cocaine, (2) Seals exerted sufficient control over a premises where narcotics were stored, and (3) Seals instructed another person to destroy or deactivate a cellphone. See United States v. Ajayi, 64 F.4th 243, 250-51 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 52-53 (5th Cir. 2014). Lastly, his substantive reasonableness argument is unavailing because he fails to show that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2