UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 98-4644

WILLIAM ABEL YATES,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 98-4726

DEMETRIUS SCOTT LLOYD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-95)

Submitted: June 22, 1999

Decided: August 3, 1999

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James D. Williams, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. WILLIAMS,
JR., P.A., Durham, North Carolina; Walter T. Johnson, Jr., Greens-
boro, North Carolina, for Appellants. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United
States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William Yates, Jr. and Demetrius Lloyd challenge their jury con-
victions and sentences for possession with intent to distribute cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Finding no merit
in the appellants' contentions, we affirm.

The court did not plainly err by admitting the voice identification
testimony of Officer Sole. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); Manson v.
Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977); United States v. Wilkinson, 137
F.3d 214, 223 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 172 (1998); United
States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 811, 814 (4th Cir. 1983). The court did
not err in denying Yates' motions for judgment of acquittal. See
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v.
Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct.
1032 (1999); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc). The court did not clearly err by instructing the jury
on the doctrine of aiding and abetting. See 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994); Fed.
R. Crim. P. 30; Ross v. Saint Augustine's College, 103 F.3d 338, 344
(4th Cir. 1996); Wells v. Murray, 831 F.2d 468, 477 (4th Cir. 1987);
United States v. Arrington, 719 F.2d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 1983). Finally,
Yates' arguments that the sentencing disparity between cocaine base
(crack) and powder cocaine is unconstitutionally discriminatory and
a violation of the Equal Protection Clause are without merit. See
United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99-100 (4th Cir. 1995); United
States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 612 (4th Cir. 1994).

                    2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
