v. Barberena-Jimenez, 1996 WL 83002, *2 (8th Cir., Feb.28, 1996) (defendant was observed crossing over the fog line several times; the Court explained: “The evidence indicates that Barberena did not maintain his automobile in a single lane of traffic. This constitutes an offense in Arkansas.”); see also United States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194, 1198 (10th Cir.1999) (finding probable cause for a traffic stop when a vehicle drifted onto the shoulder twice in less than a quarter of a mile; the applicable Kansas statute states that “[wjhenever any roadway has been divided into two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for traffic ... [a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane”); cf. Smith v. City of Little Rock, 305 Ark. 168, 806 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Ark.1991) (<HOLDING>). Pulliam suggests that Byrd targeted him
holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that in determining whether a discovery violation warrants the sanction of exclusion of evidence a court must look to whether the violation was substantial the timing of the violation the reason for the violation the degree of prejudice to the parties whether such prejudice may be cured by a postponement and the desirability of a continuance holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that the time appliances were at a distribution center within the state did not break the continuity of interstate movement the subsequent delivery from the distribution center was the last phase in the interstate shipment holding that weaving left of the center line was a violation of  2751302