UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 99-4541
KEVIN CAMPFIELD, a/k/a Kevin
Macon,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 99-4542
VIRGINIA DOUGLAS, a/k/a Mrs. V.,
a/k/a Valerie Johnson, a/k/a Valerie
Jones,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CR-98-315-CCB)

Submitted: April 10, 2000

Decided: May 11, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Kenneth W. Ravenell, Harry Levy, SCHULMAN, TREEM, KAMIN-
KOW, GILDEN & RAVENELL, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland; Stan-
ley H. Needleman, Brian J. Murphy, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellants. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Lisa M. Tur-
ner, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Campfield and Virginia Douglas each pled guilty to conspir-
acy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in viola-
tion of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), reserving the right to appeal the denial
of their motions to suppress evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).
On appeal, they contend that there was no reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to stop and detain Campfield. They also assert that the
search of the bags was not incident to the arrest because the search
preceded the arrest. We grant Douglas' motion to file a pro se supple-
mental brief, have reviewed the briefs and joint appendix, and find no
reversible error.

After a thorough review of the transcript of the hearing on the
motions to suppress and the district court's reasoning, we find no
error in the district court's denial of the motions to suppress on the
grounds that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the bags
Campfield was unloading from the vehicle contained cocaine, that the
officers had probable cause to arrest once the dogs alerted on the
bags, and that the search of the bags was incident to the arrest. See
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996) (providing stan-
dard of review). Nor do we find that the district court clearly erred

                     2
in determining the amount of drugs attributable to Douglas. See
United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating
standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm Campfield's and Douglas' convictions and
Douglas' sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
