UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 99-4058

PEDRO NUNEZ-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a

Raphael Diaz,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-121)

Submitted: March 10, 2000

Decided: March 28, 2000

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Kousouros, Kew Gardens, New York, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II, Assistant

United States Attorney, Paul D. Merullo, Third-Year Law Student,

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pedro Nunez-Rodriguez appeals the district court's order denying

his motion to suppress evidence and his jury conviction and resulting

252-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in

violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999)

and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). We affirm.

Nunez-Rodriguez was operating a rental car when a Virginia state

trooper stopped him for exceeding the speed limit. A search of the

vehicle revealed approximately six kilograms of cocaine. Following

his arrest, Nunez-Rodriguez gave police a statement concerning his

drug trafficking activity. Prior to trial, Nunez-Rodriguez moved to

suppress the physical evidence collected from the vehicle and the

statement he gave police investigators following his arrest. The

motion was denied. At trial, he moved for a judgment of acquittal that

was denied.

Nunez-Rodriguez argues the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress. He contends the evidence and statement were

products of a pretextual traffic stop, a vehicle search performed without valid consent, and an involuntary, unknowing waiver of rights. He

further contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's

guilty verdict and that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's order denying

the motion to suppress. Because police had an objective right to stop

Nunez-Rodriguez, there was no basis for the court to suppress evidence on the ground that the stop was pretextual. See Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 38-40 (1996). As to the argument that the

vehicle's search was without consent, the court did not err in concluding that oral consent was given for the search. See United States v.

 2
Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Furthermore,

even if Nunez-Rodriguez had not consented, he had no legitimate

expectation of privacy in the rental car. See United States v. Wellons,

32 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 1994). The district court also did not err in

determining that Nunez-Rodriguez's waiver of rights and subsequent

statement to police was voluntary. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,

412 U.S. 218 (1973); United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir.

1987). Finally, because the record contains substantial evidence to

support the jury's verdict, the court did not err in denying the motion

for judgment of acquittal. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

80 (1942).

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's orders and Rodriguez' jury conviction. 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