UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4809

PAUL LEE MOBLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CR-98-72)

Submitted: July 20, 1999

Decided: September 13, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Duncan R. St. Clair, III, ST. CLAIR & JOHNSON, Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Laura Pellatiro

Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Paul Lee Mobley appeals from a 120-month sentence imposed following his jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent

to distribute and to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A.§ 846 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We

therefore affirm Mobley's conviction and sentence.

Mobley first claims that the district court should have granted his

motion to suppress. We review the district court's legal conclusions

de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. See United

States v. Elie, 111 F.3d 1135, 1140 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v.

Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The evidence

presented at the suppression hearing demonstrated that Mobley was

stopped upon probable cause to believe that he was violating a traffic

law of the Commonwealth of Virginia, that he was detained briefly

and only long enough to perform a routine check on him and the vehicle, that the additional brief period of time that he was detained was

consensual, and that he freely and voluntarily gave the State Trooper

his general consent, without limitation and without withdrawing such

consent, to search the vehicle for drugs. Under these circumstances,

we find that the district court properly denied Mobley's motion to

suppress.

We further find, after a thorough review of the record and viewing

the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 846. See United States v. Wilson, 135 F.3d 291, 306 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 118 S. Ct. 1852 (1998). Thus, the district court did not err in

denying Mobley's motion for judgment of acquittal. See United States

v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct.

1032 (1999).

 2
We decline to review Mobley's assertion that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because the present record does not conclusively demonstrate ineffectiveness. See United States v. Hoyle, 33

F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm Mobley's conviction and 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