Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Eleke Davis

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60527
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ELEKE DAVIS
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:03-CR-144-All
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and PRADO, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eleke Davis appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. We affirm.
We hold that the district court did not erroneously
determine that the confidential informant’s tip, which had been
corroborated by the officers’ observations, was sufficient to
establish probable cause to search Davis’s vehicle. See United
States v. Morales, 171 F.3d 978, 981-82 (5th Cir. 1999). We
further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60527
-2-
in refusing to disclose the informant’s identity. See United
States v. Mendoza-Burciaga, 981 F.2d 192, 195 (5th Cir. 1992).
Davis failed to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal
at the close of evidence; therefore, we review his sufficiency
of the evidence argument only for a determination whether the
record is devoid of evidence pointing to his guilt and hold that
circumstantial evidence other than Davis’s mere presence in the
vehicle supported the jury’s finding that he knowingly possessed
the crack seized from the dashboard compartment. See United
States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882, 885 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc);
United States v. Jones, 185 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 1999). Davis
has failed to show an abuse of discretion on the part of the
district court in allowing Agent Jeff Killion’s phone call
testimony into evidence. See United States v. Lewis, 902 F.2d
1176, 1179 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1990).
Finally, Davis contends that the Mississippi statutory
scheme under which he was convicted as an adult for crimes
committed when he was a juvenile is unconstitutional and,
therefore, that his designation as a “career offender” under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 was erroneous. The district court, however, in
its discretion chose not to inquire into the validity of those
prior convictions on that basis, and Davis has not shown the
district court’s decision to be an abuse of its discretion. See
United States v. Canales, 960 F.2d 1311, 1315 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --