UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4561

SOL PERRY,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CR-98-383)

Submitted: February 15, 2000

Decided: March 9, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David R. Solomon, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A.
Battaglia, United States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sol Perry appeals her conviction and 151-month sentence for con-
spiracy to import cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 963 (1994).
Perry contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting
evidence of prior bad acts under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and in admitting
a co-conspirator's statement that she alleges was not in furtherance of
the charged conspiracy. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the
record and affirm.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admit-
ting Leonard Owens' testimony that Maricus Love informed him
Perry would do "certain errands" for another co-conspirator by trans-
porting "certain money" from the United States to Panama. See
United States v. Mark, 943 F.2d 444, 447 (4th Cir. 1991). We con-
clude the testimony did not concern prior bad acts under Rule 404(b)
and therefore was properly admitted. Even if the testimony did con-
cern prior bad acts, it was admissible to show Perry's intent to partici-
pate in and knowledge of the charged conspiracy. See Fed. R. Evid.
404(b); United States v. Bailey, 990 F.2d 119, 122 (4th Cir. 1993).

Furthermore, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting a portion of Lisbeth Simms' testimony under Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(E). See United States v. Bumpass, 60 F.3d 1099, 1102 (4th
Cir. 1995). We find the statement was made between co-conspirators
and in furtherance of the charged conspiracy. See Bourjaily v. United
States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987) (holding that for statement to qualify
for Rule 801(d)(2)(E) exception, "[t]here must be evidence that there
was a conspiracy involving the declarant and the nonoffering party,
and that the statement was made `during the course and in furtherance
of the conspiracy.'").

Accordingly, we affirm Perry's conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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

                     2
