*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 1 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HAROLD EDWARD DAVENPORT,

a/k/a Pops,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-3286

(D. Kan.)

(D.Ct. No. 96-CR-40023-01)

__________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

__________________________

Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

__________________________

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Mr. Davenport was convicted by a jury of five separate drug counts. He

was sentenced to a total of eighty-eight months imprisonment, with the various

sentences being served concurrently. On appeal, Mr. Davenport raises one issue: 

sufficiency of the evidence concerning all five counts. We review challenges to

the sufficiency of the evidence de novo . United States v. Jaynes , 75 F.3d 1493,

1498 (10th Cir. 1996).

This case is factually simple. At trial, the Government called six witnesses. 

An officer of the Topeka Police Department testified that he made three

controlled buys of crack cocaine from Mr. Davenport. Another officer testified

he participated in a raid of Mr. Davenport’s home, where more than eighty rocks

of crack cocaine were discovered. One of Mr. Davenport’s customers testified

she had been purchasing crack cocaine from him for almost three months. 

Another police officer testified he was present at the raid of Mr. Davenport’s

residence and conducted a search of his person, discovering marked money

utilized by the police officer who had made a controlled buy from Mr. Davenport. 

Yet another police officer testified he found crack cocaine in Mr. Davenport’s

residence when the search warrant was executed. A codefendant, who entered a

plea of guilty to reduced charges, testified she was involved in an ongoing

business with Mr. Davenport wherein they sold crack cocaine together from his
-3-

residence.

The evidence presented of Mr. Davenport’s guilt on all charges is

overwhelming. The evidence includes personal sales of cocaine by the defendant

to a police officer; the discovery of extremely large amounts of pre-packaged

cocaine in Mr. Davenport’s residence; the testimony of a long-term customer of

Mr. Davenport’s operation; and the testimony of Mr. Davenport’s partner. There

was no contrary evidence. If the jury believed the witnesses, as it obviously did,

there could be no other result than guilty verdicts on all five counts.

Mr. Davenport’s counsel very commendably filed an Anders brief and

requested he be allowed to withdraw from further representation of Mr.

Davenport in this case. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We grant

this motion.

The judgment and sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED .

Entered by the Court:

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge