UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4798

LARRY LUCAS, a/k/a Larry J. Barnes,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CR-96-166-A)

Submitted: April 22, 1997

Decided: May 14, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph S. Lazarsky, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Dennis M. Kennedy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Larry Lucas appeals the jury's verdict of guilty for the offenses of
conspiracy to escape from the Lorton Correctional Facility in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), and of attempted escape in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994). He challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence and the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on specific
intent. We affirm.

We find the evidence to be more than sufficient to support Lucas's
convictions and discern no error in the district court's denial of
Lucas's motion for judgment of acquittal. See United States v.
Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982) (providing standard).
The government's evidence allowed the jury to find that Lucas and
another inmate, Goodman, planned their escape attempt and success-
fully traversed one fence before being stymied by a wall and being
discovered. The alleged defects in the government's case raised by
Lucas either are based on minor details not relevant to his guilt or
attack the credibility of the witnesses which is a jury question. See
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 868 (4th Cir. 1996) (in banc),
cert. denied, 65 U.S.L.W. 3586 (U.S. Feb. 24, 1997) (No. 96-6868).

Lucas next argues that the trial court erred in denying his request
to instruct the jury that the government must prove his specific intent
to join the conspiracy. In this circuit, the government must prove that
he "willingly and knowingly" became part of the conspiracy. See
United States v. Whittington, 26 F.3d 456, 465 (4th Cir. 1994). As
long as the instruction given substantially covered this element, there
is no reversible error. See United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 32 (4th
Cir. 1995). The court instructed the jury that a conspiracy is an agree-
ment or mutual understanding "knowingly made or knowingly
entered into" by at least two people. It also instructed the jury that the
government had to prove that Lucas and another person "knowingly
and deliberately" arrived at some type of agreement. These instruc-
tions were sufficient. To the extent that Lucas challenges the suffi-
ciency of the court's instruction on the attempted escape offense, we
find that instruction to be sufficient also. See United States v. Bailey,
444 U.S. 394, 405-08 (1980).

                     2
We affirm Lucas's convictions and 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
