Placido Padilla appeals his conviction and sentence under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) for distributing less than 500 grams of cocaine on three separate occasions. He questions the denial of a motion to suppress, the assistance of counsel, and the sufficiency of the evidence. None of his arguments have merit; therefore, we affirm.

The motion to suppress related to tapes of conversations between defendant and New Mexico State Police Agent Cortez regarding the purchase of cocaine. Because the agent was a party to the conversations, the interceptions were proper. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c); United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 749-50 (1979). Mr. Padilla's argument ignores the applicable statute and is frivolous.

Mr. Padilla argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. We have held this issue is not cognizable on direct appeal. Beaulieu v. United States, 930 F.2d 805, 806 (10th Cir.1991). We see nothing in the arguments indicating this is one of the rare cases in which departure from that rule is required.

Mr. Padilla's argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is unpersuasive. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, as we must, we think Mr. Padilla's conversations with Agent Cortez, and, in particular, his own statements to Agent Cortez that he wanted $1,100 for each ounce of cocaine that he was selling; the expert testimony about the nature of the substance he sold; the evidence of Mr. Padilla's evasive actions; and the counter-surveillance at the time of his meetings with Agent Cortez all provide an adequate basis for Mr. Padilla's conviction.

AFFIRMED.