Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01149/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Rufus Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1149

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Rufus Wright, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2007

Filed: June 7, 2007 

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Rufus Wright guilty of conspiring to possess more than 50 grams

of actual methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,

and possessing more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court1

 sentenced him to

life in prison and 10 years of supervised release, the statutory minimum. On appeal,

his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has

Appellate Case: 06-1149 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317134
-2-

moved to withdraw, and Wright has filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

First, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Wright’s motion

to suppress the drugs seized from his vehicle because the officer had reasonable

suspicion (or even probable cause) to believe that Wright was transporting drugs and

therefore to ask him some additional questions after issuing him a warning for traffic

violations, after which Wright consented to the search. See United States v. Long,

320 F.3d 795, 800 (8th Cir. 2003). Second, we conclude that it did not violate the

Confrontation Clause for a confidential informant and his wife (whose identities were

known to the defense) not to be called to testify at trial. See United States v. Drew,

894 F.2d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 1990).

Third, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Wright’s

possession-with-intent conviction, see United States v. Cuevas-Arrendondo, 469 F.3d

712, 715 (8th Cir. 2006), as well as his conspiracy conviction, see United States v.

Rodgers, 18 F.3d 1425, 1428-29 (8th Cir. 1994). Fourth, the officer who interviewed

Wright at jail was not required to document his giving of warnings under Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in written, audiotaped, or videotaped form. See United

States v. Williams, 429 F.3d 767, 772 (8th Cir. 2005).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. Having found no merit to the appeal, we deny as moot Wright’s

motion for the appointment of new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1149 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317134