UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 95-5134

PAUL CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 95-5529

PAUL CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.
(CR-94-239)

Submitted: March 19, 1996

Decided: April 18, 1996

Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

William E. Martin, Federal Public Defender, John Stuart Bruce, Dep-
uty Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel-
lant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert M.
Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Paul Davis appeals his conviction and sentence of 330 months
incarceration for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.1
Davis, through counsel, contends that the district court erred by fail-
ing to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, that the Gov-
ernment breached the plea agreement, that cocaine base was
improperly attributed to him for sentencing purposes, and that he
should not be sentenced as a career offender. Additionally, Davis filed
a motion to file a supplemental brief which reiterated some of the
issues raised by counsel, and independently raises the issue of sen-
tencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine. Because Davis's
supplemental brief is tautological and we have repeatedly ruled that
the more severe penalties for crack cocaine over powder cocaine are
constitutional,2 we deny Davis's motion to file a supplemental brief.
Further, we find no reversible error; thus we affirm Davis's convic-
tion and sentence.
_________________________________________________________________
1 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1) (1988).
2 United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 612 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 3861 (U.S. June 27, 1994) (No. 93-9131);
United States v. Bynum, 3 F.3d 769, 774-75 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 3552 (U.S. Feb. 22, 1994) (No. 93-7295);
United States v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 39-40 (4th Cir. 1990).

                    2
A North Carolina state trooper stopped Davis for speeding on I-85.
Davis, who did not have a driver's license, gave the trooper the ficti-
tious name David Guilly and a document that purported to show that
David Guilly had an appointment with the South Carolina Department
of Motor Vehicles to obtain a driver's license. After running a com-
puter check on David Guilly, the trooper issued Davis citations for
speeding and driving without a license. After issuing the citations, the
trooper inquired if Davis's car contained any drugs, alcohol, firearms,
or stolen property. Davis responded negatively. The trooper then
asked for permission to search the car. Davis gave permission and
signed a consent form. The search of the car uncovered a large quan-
tity of crack cocaine. Davis was arrested and subsequently entered a
conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute crack
cocaine. Davis now appeals his conviction and sentence.

Specifically, Davis contends that he was unduly detained by the
police for a routine speeding violation. Further, Davis contends that
he never gave permission to search his car. We find the encounter
after the citations were written to be consensual. Further, the district
court found that Davis knew he had the right to refuse the search, yet
he validly signed the consent form. Davis had an opportunity to read
the consent form and his rights were explained to him, thus Davis's
claim that he did not understand what he signed is dubious. Because
the search of Davis's car was consensual there was no Fourth Amend-
ment violation.3 The district court's determination is supported by the
record and is not clearly erroneous.4 Therefore, we uphold the district
court's denial of Davis's motion to suppress.

Next, Davis contends that the government breached the plea agree-
ment by not giving him an opportunity to earn a reduction in sentence
by providing substantial assistance. Davis's claim is without merit
because the plea agreement did not specify that Davis's cooperation
could earn him a reduction in sentence. This is not a case where the
defendant did not receive the benefit of his bargain, or the Govern-
ment absolutely failed to conduct a debriefing.5 At the FED. R. CRIM.
_________________________________________________________________
3 Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250-51 (1991).
4 United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 877 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 926 (1992).
5 United States v. Ringling, 988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1993).

                    3
P. 11 hearing, Davis, through counsel, acknowledged that even if he
gave substantial assistance the Government would not be compelled
to move for a reduction in sentence. Further, Davis was given oppor-
tunities to cooperate, yet he refused to be interviewed or provided
information of little or no value. The Government was not obligated
to give Davis additional opportunities to cooperate or seek a reduction
in sentence. Therefore, the plea agreement was not breached.

Next, Davis contends that two kilograms of crack cocaine were
improperly attributed to him for sentencing purposes. Testimony at
sentencing established by a preponderance6 that Davis had recently
transported at least two kilograms of crack cocaine to Rock Hill,
South Carolina. Consequently, we cannot say that the district court's
attribution of two kilograms of crack cocaine to Davis was clearly
erroneous.7

Finally, Davis claims that he does not qualify as a career offender
within the meaning of United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual, § 4B1.1 (Nov. 1994). Davis's claim is without
merit. Davis's two convictions for attempted robbery in 1982 and
1987 satisfy the statute, thus he was properly considered as a career
offender.

Accordingly, we find Davis's appeal without merit and deny his
motion to file a supplemental brief and affirm his conviction and sen-
tence. 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
_________________________________________________________________
6 United States v. Powell, 886 F.2d 81, 85 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,
493 U.S. 1084 (1990).

7 United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1148 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
505 U.S. 1228 (1992).




                    4
