Filed: Oct. 10, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-30978 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES RAY BURTON, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (95-CR-60048) _ September 19, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles Ray Burton appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, complaining of insufficiency of the
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-30978 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES RAY BURTON, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (95-CR-60048) _ September 19, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles Ray Burton appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, complaining of insufficiency of the e..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-30978
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES RAY BURTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana
(95-CR-60048)
______________________________________________
September 19, 1997
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Ray Burton appeals from his conviction for possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, complaining of insufficiency of
the evidence, the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress, and the sufficiency of the jury instructions. Our review
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that
no reversible error was committed. The evidence was not
insufficient. See United States v. Ivey, 929 F.2d 759, 766 (5th
Cir. 1991). The district court did not err by denying Burton’s
motion to suppress based on Burton’s claim that the automobile stop
was improper. See Wren v. United States,
116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772
(1996). Nor did the district court commit plain error in failing
to find that his consent to search was involuntary. See Robertson
v. Plano City of Texas,
70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995) (plain error
standard). Finally, the district court did not commit plain error
in failing to instruct the jury that it had dismissed one count of
the indictment. See United States v. Calverly,
37 F.3d 160, 162-64
(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano,
507 U.S.
725, 731-37 (1993)).
AFFIRMED.
2
