United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 5, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41666
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DESHAWN ANDREWS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-01-CR21-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deshawn Andrews was convicted by a jury of possession with
the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing
a detectable amount of cocaine base, and he was sentenced to life
in prison. Andrews first argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress with regard to the crack cocaine
found on his person following his arrest for criminal
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-41666
-2-
trespassing. He contends that the police officers did not have
reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify his stop and detention.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal and
conclude that the district court did not err in denying the
motion to suppress. When the officers first spotted Andrews, he
was in a parking lot adjacent to a rooming house. It was early
in the morning, the area was known for drug-trafficking, and
Andrews had the reputation of being a drug dealer. Just prior to
spotting Andrews in the parking lot, the officers observed a
pick-up truck leaving the lot at a fast rate of speed. After
Andrews spotted the police car, he quickly walked to the door of
the rooming house and began knocking on the door. No one
answered, and Andrews admitted that he did not live at the
rooming house. Andrews was nervous during questioning and was
acting unusual. Given the totality of the circumstances, the
officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Andrews for
criminal trespassing. Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202
F.3d 730, 736, 739 (5th Cir. 2000).
We reject Andrews’s argument that the officer’s testimony at
the suppression hearing that he did not know the identity of the
driver of the pick-up truck violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S.
264 (1959) because it conflicted with his testimony at the trial
that the driver was Diane Battle. The record reflects, however,
that at the time that the officer spotted the truck, he was
unaware of the identity of the driver and only after Andrews was
No. 03-41666
-3-
arrested did he realize that the driver was Battle. Thus, there
was no Napue violation.
We also reject Andrews’s argument that the notice of
enhancement was defective as it did not specifically state that
the Government intended to seek a life sentence. The notice of
enhancement was filed prior to trial, enumerated Andrews’s prior
convictions, and cited to 21 U.S.C. § 851. Thus, the notice was
sufficient. Given the foregoing, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.