UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 99-4597

CHARLES EDWARD MCMILLON,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 99-4598
LESTER RAY MCMILLON, a/k/a Baby
Ray McMillon,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-105-BO)

Submitted: April 28, 2000

Decided: May 16, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

J. Douglas McCullough, STUBBS & PERDUE, P.A., Raleigh, North
Carolina; Mark E. Edwards, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellants.
John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Charles McMillon ("Charles") and Lester Ray McMillon ("Lester
Ray") appeal from their convictions and sentences for possession with
the intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a) (1994), and
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute
crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Their attorneys have filed
briefs in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Counsel state that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
address the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred in
granting the Government's motion for sequestration; (2) whether the
Government violated the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (1994); and
(3) whether the court erred when it permitted the jury to view a tran-
script of a tape recording of a controlled purchase of drugs that identi-
fied Lester Ray as one of the speakers.

Charles and Lester Ray filed pro se briefs claiming that: (1) the
Government knowingly used perjured testimony; (2) the Govern-
ment's witnesses were not credible because they were housed in the
same correctional institution prior to trial and because they had a
motive to lie; (3) Charles' counsel failed to confer with him prior to
stipulating that the drugs that were purchased during the controlled
buys were crack cocaine; (4) there was insufficient evidence of an
agreement between the Appellants to conspire to possess with the

                     2
intent to distribute and to distribute crack cocaine; and (5) the court
erred when it did not, in the absence of any defense request, give an
entrapment instruction regarding Lois Hodge's controlled purchases
that were made in 1997 and 1998 at the direction of the drug task-
force.

Because our review of the record reveals no reversible error, we
affirm. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that each counsel inform his client, in writ-
ing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but coun-
sel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. A
motion for leave to withdraw must state that a copy thereof was
served on the client. 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
