IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50805
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADORNA DAREESE DAVIDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-96-CR-79-ALL)
- - - - - - - - - -
October 3, 1997
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adorna Dareese Davidson has appealed her convictions for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and
for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. For reasons
discussed below, the convictions are AFFIRMED.
We reject Davidson’s contention that the indictment was
insufficient in failing to specify the quantity of cocaine base
allegedly involved in the offense and in failing to identify
Davidson’s alleged coconspirators. Appellant’s reliance on United
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 96-50805
-2-
States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
117 S. Ct. 446 (1996) is misplaced, since that case turned on the
distinction between a misdemeanor and felony offense pertinent to
U.S.C. § 844(a) and 846, and we have held the amount of drugs need
not be stated in the indictment. United States v. Montes, 976 F.2d
235, 242 (5th Cir. 1992). See also United States v. Flores, 63
F.3d 1342, 1360 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 87
(1996).
We review Davidson’s contention that her out-of-court
statement should have been excluded under FED. R. EVID. 403 for plain
error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993); United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
We find no error, plain or otherwise.
Davidson contends that the evidence of guilt was
insufficient. Diana Moore’s testimony, alone, was sufficient to
support Davidson’s conviction. See United States v. Pena-
Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert.
filed (June 19, 1997) (No. 96-9480).
Further, Davidson’s substantial rights were not affected
and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
admit the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant into
evidence. See United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520, 526 (5th Cir.
1997).
Davidson contends that the Government violated the rule
in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by striking the lone
No. 96-50805
-3-
black venireperson. Because discriminatory intent is not inherent
in the prosecutor’s explanation for striking the venire person, see
United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1466 (5th Cir. 1993),
Davidson’s Batson claim is without merit.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by
disqualifying Davidson’s attorney because of an actual conflict of
interest. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160-64 (1988);
United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 791 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
117 S. Ct. 620 (1996), and cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1002, and cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 1324 (1997).
AFFIRMED.