IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50503
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MELVIN JAMES SANFORD;
GERALD ANTHONY HARRIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-96-CR-53-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 30, 1998
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Melvin James Sanford and Gerald Anthony Harris challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions for
conspiracy to possess crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846. Sanford’s argument that the Government failed to show that
he conspired to distribute crack cocaine is meritless, and his
conviction should not be reversed. United States v. Cartwright, 6
F.3d 294, 303 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Chavez, 119 F.3d
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-50503
-2-
342, 347 (5th Cir. 1997). Harris’s argument that he was not part
of a conspiracy fails. See United States v. Teal, 582 F.3d 343,
345 (5th Cir. 1978).
Sanford challenges the legality of the search of his
residence. The warrant was supported by an affidavit which was
sufficiently particular as to the items to be seized. See United
States v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127, 132 (5th Cir. 1995). The business
cards were not under the ambit of the warrant, but they were
admissible under the plain view doctrine. Horton v. California,
496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990). The currency from the safes was not
admissible evidence under the plain view doctrine, but its
admission was harmless error given the testimony of Kenneth Brown
and Oscula Clayton, as well as other evidence which corroborated
Brown’s testimony. United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117, 123
(5th Cir. 1995).
Harris’s and Sanford’s contention that the sentencing
enhancement provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) violate
the Equal Protection Clause has been rejected by this court.
United States v. Cherry, 50 F.3d 338, 342-44 (5th Cir. 1995). One
panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel
absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision
of the Supreme Court. United States v. Arcs, 118 F.3d 335, 338
(5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED