United States v. Davis ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-10476
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ALVIN O’NEAL DAVIS, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:99-CR-276-1-A
    --------------------
    March 16, 2001
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:1
    Alvin O’Neal Davis, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction
    for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base, in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).           Davis argues
    that the factual basis for his guilty plea was insufficient to
    support   the   possession   element   of   the   offense.    He   further
    contends that, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000), the district court erred by failing to admonish Davis at
    his rearraignment that drug quantity was an element of the offense,
    1
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    thereby rendering Davis’ guilty plea involuntarily made.                  Davis
    also asserts that error resulted from the Government’s decision
    against filing a motion for downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 5K1.1.
    We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the
    parties and hold that there was an adequate factual basis to
    support the possession element of the offense, and that any error
    committed by the district court in failing to admonish Davis that
    drug quantity was an element of the offense was harmless.                United
    States v. Marek, 
    238 F.3d 310
    (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2001, Nos. 98-
    40568, 98-40955)(en banc), 
    2001 WL 10561
    at *3; United States v.
    Cuevas-Andrade, 
    232 F.3d 440
    , 443 (5th Cir. 2000). We further hold
    that,    pursuant   to    the   terms   of   Davis’     plea   agreement,   the
    Government    was   not    required     to   file   a   motion   for   downward
    departure.    United States v. Aderholt, 
    87 F.3d 740
    , 743 (5th Cir.
    1996).
    AFFIRMED.
    2