United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 12, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41200
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KELVIN RAY DILLARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CR-232-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kelvin Ray Dillard appeals his jury-trial convictions
for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
Dillard argues that evidence was seized from his ex-
girlfriend’s apartment in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We
review for plain error only, because Dillard did not object to
the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. See Douglass
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41200
-2-
1996) (en banc). Because Dillard’s brief fails to challenge the
determination that he lacked standing, he has failed to
demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise. See also Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not briefed
are deemed abandoned).
Dillard next argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions. Based on the discovery of Dillard’s
fingerprints on glassware used to “cook” crack cocaine, the
multiple items in the house that belonged to Dillard, the
discovery of cocaine in plain sight, and the quantity involved,
we conclude that a jury could have found that the evidence
established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United
States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000).
Finally, Dillard argues that the district court erred in
allowing expert testimony and reports that were not disclosed
until the morning of trial. These chemical analysis reports, one
of which was completed only shortly before trial, merely
confirmed that the substances were cocaine and crack cocaine, and
their belated disclosure was not prejudicial. See United States
v. Katz, 178 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 1999) (factors considered in
evaluating discovery violations include why disclosure was not
previously made and prejudice). We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Solis,
299 F.3d 420, 442 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied 123 S. Ct. 640
(2002).
AFFIRMED.