                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                     _______________________

                           No. 96-20470
                     _______________________


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

                              versus

                       ROYAL DEANDRE ALLEN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                         Houston Division
                          (CR-H-95-264-1)
_________________________________________________________________
                           August 8, 1997

Before JONES, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

          Royal Deandre Allen was convicted by a jury of conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base from May 27,

1995, to July 8, 1995, possession with intent to distribute cocaine

base on July 7 and 8, 1995, and being a felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).    The district court

granted Allen’s post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal on


     *
       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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the firearm charge.    Allen was sentenced to life imprisonment on

both drug counts.

           On appeal, Allen argues that the district court erred in

permitting   Officer   Steven   Kwiatkoski’s   “purely   speculative”

testimony about government’s exhibit 14(C), which is a photograph

showing Allen counting money while standing in a kitchen where a

pot sits on a stove.     Allen also argues that the prosecutor’s

inflammatory references in closing remarks to community sentiment

about drugs and the perils of the next generation deprived him of

his right to a fair trial.

         After hearing oral argument, reviewing the briefs, the

authorities cited therein and the record, we find no reversible

error.   Thus, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

           AFFIRMED.
