UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 00-4175

RODNEY DEAN CURLEE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CR-99-182)

Submitted: July 14, 2000

Decided: August 25, 2000

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury found Rodney Dean Curlee guilty of one count of posses-
sion with intent to distribute dihydrocodeinone, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (1994), and one count of carrying a fire-
arm during a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(c)(1) (West 2000). On appeal, Curlee contends that: (1) the dis-
trict court erred by finding that the police had probable cause to con-
duct a warrantless search of his vehicle, and (2) the evidence was
insufficient to support the convictions. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.

This Court reviews de novo a district court's finding of probable
cause. See Ornelas v. United States, 

, 691 (1996). Police
officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they have
probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. See
California v. Acevedo, 

, 579-80 (1991). A police officer
has probable cause to search when the totality of the facts and circum-
stances known to the officer would "lead a prudent person to believe
that the items sought constitute fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence
of crime and will be present at the time and place of the search."
United States v. Suarez, 

, 984 (4th Cir. 1990). Our
review of the circumstances establishes that the police had probable
cause to search Curlee's vehicle.

We review a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence by deter-
mining whether there is substantial evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the government, to support the verdict. See
Glasser v. United States, 

, 80 (1942). We must consider
circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the government
the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those
sought to be established. See United States v. Tresvant, 

, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Upon our review of the record, we con-
clude that there was substantial evidence to sustain both convictions.

                    2
We grant Curlee's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We
find that the issues raised in the pro se supplemental brief are either
duplicative of issues raised by counsel on appeal, without merit, or
not eligible for appellate review.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3