IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-30628
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WARREN J. BROUSSARD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. CR-94-20018
- - - - - - - - - -
September 20, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren J. Broussard, Jr., appeals his conviction and
sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841. Broussard argues that the district
court erred in denying the downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility because he gave a signed confession and did not
contest the presence or amount of narcotics, and the only issue
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 95-30628
- 2 -
at trial was whether he could be held accountable for the mental
state of the crime rather than his participation. He contends
that application note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 applies. Broussard
denied his guilt and put the Government to its burden of proof on
an element of the crime, intent to distribute. The district
court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. United
States v. Cartwright, 6 F.3d 294, 304 (5th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 115 S. Ct. 671 (1994).
Broussard argues that, based on expert testimony, cocaine
base and powder cocaine are scientifically the same substance,
that the disparity in the guidelines ranges for the two drugs is
unfounded, and that the lesser guideline range for powder cocaine
should apply according to the rule of lenity and the Equal
Protection Clause. This court rejected this identical argument
in United States v. Flanagan, 87 F.3d 121, 123-24 (5th Cir.
1996); see also United States v. Cherry, 50 F.3d 338, 342-44 (5th
Cir. 1995)(rejecting equal protection argument).
Broussard’s statement is sufficient evidence from which to
infer his intent to distribute the cocaine. The record is not
devoid of evidence of his intent to distribute. United States v.
Laury, 49 F.3d 145, 151 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 162
(1995); United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir.)
(en banc).
Broussard’s speedy trial argument is abandoned for failure
to brief it. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993). Likewise, Broussard has failed to brief and has thus
abandoned his argument that his later consent to search the van
No. 95-30628
- 3 -
was tainted by the alleged prior illegal arrest, rendering the
arrest issue moot.
AFFIRMED.