UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 95-5140

GERALD DAVID DAVAGE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge;
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CR-94-41-PJM)

Submitted: March 12, 1996

Decided: June 26, 1996

Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James K. Bredar, Federal Public Defender, Sigmund R. Adams,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-
lant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Douglas B. Far-
quhar, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Davage appeals from the district court's judgment order
entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of conspiring to
rob an armored car guard, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (West
1988 & Supp. 1995), robbing an armored car guard, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1988), and using a firearm in commission of a
crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1988). The only
issue raised in Davage's formal brief relates to the trial court's
response to a note sent by the jury relating to whether Davage had a
prior criminal record. Because no evidence regarding a prior record
was introduced at trial, the trial court responded that "[t]here is no
evidence before you that Mr. Davage has a prior criminal record."

We disagree with Davage's assertion that the jury's question and
the court's response support the inference that the jury improperly
believed that Davage had a criminal record when it rendered its ver-
dict. The mere fact that a jury requests extrinsic information does not
mean that it ultimately relied on that information in reaching its deci-
sion. See Harrison v. Otis Elevator Co., 935 F.2d 714, 718 (5th Cir.
1991). Moreover, contrary to Davage's contention, we think that the
trial court's response in this case to the jury's question should have
apprised the jury that consideration of whether or not Mr. Davage had
a criminal record would be improper. We therefore find that the trial
court's response did not constitute an abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 1990).

While we grant Davage's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief
out of time on appeal, we have reviewed the contentions raised in his
brief and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment order of
the district court is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    2
