United States v. Pritchett ( 1996 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60616
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDDIE PRITCHETT, JR.
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi
(2:95-CR-036-D-A)
______________________________________________
July 3, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eddie Pritchett, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for
aiding and abetting others to possess with intent to distribute in
excess of five grams of a mixture containing cocaine base. Our
review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us
that no reversible error was committed.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Pritchett argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction. Trooper Mills's search of Pritchett's person
uncovered 45.82 grams of cocaine base. As such, there was
sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Pritchett
actually possessed the contraband. The Government also introduced
testimony estimating that the street value of 45.82 grams of
cocaine base was between $4,500 and $9000 and "definitely
indicative" of distribution, not personal use. Thus, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and drawing
all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, the evidence was
sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that Pritchett was guilty of the offense charged. See United
States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 1994).
Pritchett contends that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress the evidence seized after the traffic stop.
He maintains that the stop, based on an unreliable tip, was merely
a pretext to enable Trooper Mills to find contraband. A review of
the record reflects that the initial traffic stop was justified at
its inception. Thus, whether Trooper Mills had the subjective
intent to search for drugs based on an allegedly unreliable tip is
irrelevant because the initial traffic stop was lawful. See United
States v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1179, 1184-85 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc).
The district court did not err in denying Pritchett's motion to
suppress the evidence seized after the traffic stop.
Pritchett argues that his constitutional speedy trial rights
2
were violated because, although he was arrested on June 3, 1994, he
was not indicted on the federal charges until March 23, 1995. The
federal constitutional right to a speedy trial does not ordinarily
attach until a federal accusation, even if a prior state arrest is
based on the same events as the subsequent federal charge. United
States v. Walker, 710 F.2d 1062, 1069 (5th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1005 (1984). Pritchett was not subject to a
federal indictment until March 23, 1995, and, therefore, his Sixth
Amendment right did not attach until that date. His trial was
conducted on June 12 and 13, 1995. This delay of less than three
months is insufficient to trigger the constitutional speedy-trial
analysis. See Nelson v. Hargett, 989 F.2d 847, 851-52 (5th Cir.
1993) (noting that this circuit generally requires a delay of at
least one year to trigger the speedy-trial analysis).
To the extent that Pritchett contends that he was denied due
process because of the delay between his state arrest and his
federal indictment, his argument is unavailing because Pritchett
has not demonstrated actual prejudice. See United States v.
Beszborn, 21 F.3d 62, 65-66 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 330
(1994).
Pritchett next argues that the district court abused its
discretion in allowing Trooper Mills to testify regarding the radio
dispatch advising him to watch for a type of vehicle believed to be
occupied by two black males carrying approximately two ounces of
cocaine base. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
3
the challenged testimony because "[o]ut-of-court statements
providing background information to explain the actions of
investigators are not hearsay." United States v. Carrillo, 20 F.3d
617, 619 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 261 (1994).
Finally, the court did not err in refusing to grant a decrease
in Pritchett's offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See
United States v. Maldonado, 42 F.3d 906, 913-14 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
4