                   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             _____________________

                                  No. 99-50593
                                Summary Calendar
                             _____________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                       versus

DUDLEY EDWARD VANDERGRIFF,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Western District of Texas
                     USDC No. P-97-CR-66-ALL
_________________________________________________________________
                         June 7, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Dudley Edward Vandergriff appeals from his conditional nolo

contendere plea conviction and resultant sentence for possession of

a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).             He argues

that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress and

by refusing to grant him a three-level reduction in his offense

level       pursuant   to   U.S.S.G.    §   3E1.1   for   his   acceptance   of

responsibility. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible


        *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
error.   Based upon the facts known to authorities, probable cause

existed for the arrest of the occupants of the Oldsmobile that was

traveling with the Suburban.   Thus, the district court did not err

by denying Vandergriff’s motion to suppress.   See United States v.

Tellez, 11 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1993).      Further, based upon

Vandergriff’s continued denial of certain facts and elements of the

offense, the district court did not clearly err by denying his

request for a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of

responsibility.   See United States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 181 (5th

Cir. 1994).   Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

                                                   A F F I R M E D.




                                 2
