IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40035
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TONY JAMES GUIDRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 95-40035
- - - - - - - - - -
July 18, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tony James Guidry appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and
using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Guidry
argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress cocaine and a firearm discovered in the vehicle in which
he was travelling. He argues that the prolonged detention after
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-40035
-2-
the valid initial traffic stop was unreasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.
The traffic stop was valid at its inception, and the
questioning of the defendant before the issuance of the written
and verbal warnings did not unreasonably extend the valid stop.
See United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437-38 (5th Cir.
1993). The detention lasted no longer than necessary to confirm
or dispel the officer's suspicion that the vehicle contained
contraband or that the defendant had committed any other serious
crime. See Shabazz, 993 F.2d at 436-37. The valid voluntary
consent given by Guidry's codefendant, the owner of the vehicle,
cured any Fourth Amendment violation. See United States v.
Kelley, 981 F.2d 1464, 1470 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S.
944 (1993). The district court did not err in denying Guidry's
motion to suppress.
Guidry also argues that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting evidence of his subsequent possession of
cocaine pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We have examined the
record and Guidry's contentions and find no reversible error.
See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 914 (5th Cir. 1978)
(en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920 (1979). Accordingly, we
AFFIRM the judgment for essentially the reasons given by the
district court.
AFFIRMED.