IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-20421
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARC T. HOWARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-160-1
_________________________________________________________________
June 1, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marc T. Howard appeals his jury trial conviction and sentence
for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. See 21
U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II).
Howard argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at
the rearraignment, when Howard entered his guilty plea, based on
counsel’s failure to inform him of the increased penalties he faced
due to his prior felony drug conviction and the government’s intent
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
to seek an enhanced sentence through its 21 U.S.C. § 851 filing.
Howard asserts that he understood through counsel that he was
facing no more than eight years’ imprisonment. The district
court’s grant of Howard’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea mooted
any issue arising from counsel’s assistance at the guilty plea
hearing. See United States v. Watch, 7 F.3d 422, 429 (5th Cir.
1993).
Howard argues that his rights to due process under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the court’s vacation of
its order denying Howard’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
setting the cause for trial, which resulted in a more onerous
sentence than what Howard was lead to believe at rearraignment when
he entered his guilty plea. Howard has not demonstrated error,
plain or otherwise. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160,
162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Howard argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress the cocaine seized from the luggage of his
codefendant. Howard’s motion did not seek the suppression of any
physical evidence. He sought suppression of his verbal statements.
In the district court, he expressly conceded his lack of standing
to challenge the seizure of the cocaine. Consequently, Howard
waived the Fourth Amendment issue. See United States v. Olano, 507
2
U.S. 725, 733 (1993); United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d
127, 129 (5th Cir. 1997).
A F F I R M E D.
3