United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 2, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41494
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LANDON RANNIER JONES
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CR-199-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Landon Rannier Jones has appealed his convictions for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute less than 100
grams of phencyclidine (“PCP”) and for possession with intent to
distribute less than 100 grams of PCP. Jones contends that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
seized during a traffic stop of a rental car in which he was a
passenger. Jones contends that the traffic stop was not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-41494
-2-
justified at its inception and that the scope of his detention
exceeded the permissible purpose of the stop.
The arresting officers testified at the suppression hearing
that they stopped the vehicle because they observed two traffic
violations, failure to signal a lane change and failure to
maintain a single lane. Jones argues that the evidence did not
show that the failure of the driver to maintain a single lane was
unsafe or dangerous. Without such a showing, he contends, no
state law violation was shown. We need not resolve this
question, because the driver’s failure to signal a lane change
provided an adequate basis for stopping the vehicle. See United
States v. Roberson, 6 F.3d 1088, 1091–92 (5th Cir. 1993); see
also TEX. TRANS. CODE ANN. § 545.104 (West 1999). The arresting
officer articulated facts during the suppression hearing from
which he could have concluded reasonably that Jones had committed
or was committing a crime. Accordingly, Jones’s continued
detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See United
States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 2000).
Jones contends also that the evidence of his guilt was
insufficient. Because Jones did not move for judgment of
acquittal in the district court, our review is limited to a
determination whether Jones’s “convictions resulted in a manifest
miscarriage of justice, which exists only if the record is devoid
of evidence pointing to guilt or if the evidence on a key element
of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would be
No. 02-41494
-3-
shocking.” United States v. Smith, 203 F.3d 884, 887–88 (5th
Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). There was ample
evidence presented at trial showing that Jones conspired with his
codefendants to distribute PCP and that Jones possessed PCP with
intent to distribute. The convictions are
AFFIRMED.