United States v. Adams ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20817
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE DARO ADAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-551-2
--------------------
May 21, 2002
Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence Daro Adams appeals his sentence and conviction for
aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 500
grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Adams argues that the
district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress
evidence because there was no probable cause to arrest him; that
the district court erred when it overruled his motion for
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-20817
-2-
judgment of acquittal; and that the district court erred when it
applied the § 4B1.1 career offender enhancement to his sentence.
Adams’ argument that the district court erred when it denied
his suppression motion is rejected because the record
demonstrates that an experienced narcotics officer had ample
probable cause to suspect that Adams was committing the offense
of aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine. See United
States v. Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 268 (5th Cir. 1999). There was
also probable cause to conduct the following search of Adams’
vehicle. See United States v. Sinesterra, 77 F.3d 101, 105 (5th
Cir. 1996). Adams’ argument that there is insufficient evidence
to support the jury’s verdict is also rejected because the
evidence that was submitted to the jury supports the theory that
Adams was aiding and abetting the possession with intent to
distribute cocaine. See United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920,
923 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, Adams’ argument that the district
court erroneously applied the United States Sentencing Guideline
§ 4B1.1 career offender enhancement is rejected because Adams was
18 years or older at the time of the offense, the offense is a
felony, and he had two prior felony convictions. § 4B1.1; see
also § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3).
Therefore, the judgment is AFFIRMED.