*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand 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, th is 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 c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Mr. Davenport was convicted by a jury of five separ ate drug counts. He was sentenced to a total of eighty-eight months imp risonment, with the various sentences being served concurrently. On appeal, Mr . Davenport raises one issue: sufficiency of the evidence concerning all five cou nts. 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 Gover nment called six witnesses. An officer of the Topeka Police Department testifie d 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, dis covering marked money utilized by the police officer who had made a contr olled buy from Mr. Davenport. Yet another police officer testified he found crackcocaine in Mr. Davenport’s residence when the search warrant was executed. A codefendant, who entered a plea of guilty to reduced charges, testified she wa s involved in an ongoing business with Mr. Davenport wherein they sold crackcocaine 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 lar ge 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 re presentation 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