* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50738 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EARNEST JAYMY DERRICK; JAMES ARNES STUBBLEFIELD, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-96-CR-87-1 June 30, 1998 Before DUHEÂ’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Earnest Jaymy Derrick appeals his jury convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, two counts of distribution of crack cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Derrick argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was in fact crack cocaine as charged in count four of the indictment and that the substance weighed at least five grams. Derrick also argues that the district court erred in refusing to consider his collateral attack on a prior drug offense conviction which had been used to enhance his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Coappellant James Arnes Stubblefield appeals his jury convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the undercover officer§ 851(e); United States v. Gonzales , 79 F.3d 413, 426-27 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 183 (1996). Finally, the district court did not err in denying StubblefieldÂ’s suppression motion. Even if the patrol officerÂ’s stop violated StubblefieldÂ’s Fourth Amendment rights, the undercover officerÂ’s in-court identification rested upon his observation of Stubblefield at the time of the crime, which predated any subsequent constitutional violation. United States v. Crews , 445 U.S. 463, 472-73 (1980).

After briefing was completed, Derrick filed a motion requesting that his appeal be withdrawn without prejudice and that substitute counsel be appointed. Derrick§§ 2, 3; see United States v. Trevino , 992 F.2d 64, 65 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.

No. 97-50738