United States v. Mitchell

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Mitchell

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________

No. 99-40883 Summary Calendar _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LACHANDRA LATAAN MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1:98-CR-200-ALL) _________________________________________________________________ March 22, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lachandra Lataan Mitchell appeals her conviction for one count

of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841

(a)(1).

First, Mitchell contends that the district court erred in

denying her motion to suppress. The officers’ initial stop of

Mitchell was properly based on a violation of Texas law, namely,

her failure to have a properly displayed license plate, and their

subsequent detention of Mitchell was founded upon reasonable

suspicion. See United States v. Prudhome,

13 F.3d 147, 149

(5th

Cir.), cert. denied,

511 U.S. 1097

(1994); United States v. Tellez,

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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

11 F.3d 530, 532

(5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,

511 U.S. 1060

(1994). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the

motion to suppress. See United States v. Inocencio,

40 F.3d 716, 721

(5th Cir. 1994).

Next, Mitchell claims insufficient evidence to support her

conviction. When stopped, Mitchell consented to her vehicle being

searched. Crack and powder cocaine, with an approximate $250,000

street value, was found in the trunk. Her conviction was amply

supported by evidence of her guilty knowledge and intent to

distribute the cocaine. See United States v. Jones,

185 F.3d 459, 464

(5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished