[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1689
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ANTONIUS TURNER,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Kevin S. Nixon on brief for appellant. ______________
Antonius Turner on supplemental brief pro se. _______________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Carmen M. Ortiz, ________________ ________________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
January 21, 1998
____________________
Per Curiam. After a thorough review of the record and __________
the briefs submitted by the parties, we affirm. Appellant
Antonius Turner ("Turner") challenges the district court's
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car
during a traffic stop. He contends the officers who stopped
him lacked a "reasonable suspicion" that he was engaged in
criminal activity, see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 ___ __________________
(1979), but we disagree. Given Turner's long history of
driving without a license and ignoring warnings that his
failure to obtain a license would result in his arrest--a
history with which the arresting officer was quite familiar--
it was manifestly reasonable for the officer to assume Turner
was persisting in his failure to obtain a driver's license.
Turner has filed a supplemental brief pro se which ___ __
raises a number of additional issues, but his arguments fail.
Even if the district court did not fully comply with
Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 when it accepted his guilty plea, we find
that any error was harmless, since Turner fully understood
the quantity of drugs to which he was admitting and the
sentence upon which the parties had agreed. Fed.R.Crim.P.
11(h). Further, we see no evidence in the record that his
plea was involuntary. His claim that his sentence violated
the eighth amendment was not preserved for appeal, and
nowhere in the record does it appear that Turner ever
objected to the probation officer's statement that the
-2-
substance at issue was cocaine base, or that he made any
other objections to the Presentence Report. By pleading
guilty, he waived his right to challenge any speedy trial
violation. United States v. Cordero, 42 F.3d 697, 698-99 _________________________
(1st Cir. 1994). We do not reach any conclusion regarding
the merits of his ineffective assistance claim, since the
record on this issue is not fully developed. United States _____________
v. Carrington, 96 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1996). Turner may _____________
raise this issue by filing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2255 in the district court. The motion should be supported
by a signed affidavit from Turner stating at a minimum
whether his attorney advised him before his guilty plea of
the results of the second weighing of the cocaine seized from
him on the night of his arrest.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. _________
-3-