UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-4123

PRESTON WEST, a/k/a Chipper,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CR-97-175)

Submitted: April 6, 1999

Decided: August 9, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stephen J. Kleeman, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A.
Battaglia, United States Attorney, Robert R. Harding, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Preston West appeals from his convictions and sentence following
a jury trial of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5), conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846, and distribution of cocaine (two counts) in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(c). West was sentenced to 480 months' imprison-
ment for the conspiracy to distribute offense, 240 months' imprison-
ment (two terms) for the distribution offenses, and 120 months'
imprisonment for the conspiracy to commit murder offense, with all
sentences to be served concurrently. West timely noted an appeal.

On appeal, West contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions for conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to commit murder in
the aid of racketeering; (2) the trial court erred in calculating the
amount of drugs attributable to him; (3) his convictions were unlawful
because the Government promised leniency in exchange for the wit-
nesses' testimony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994); and
(4) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence letters that West
wrote to a cooperating witness.

We find that the evidence was sufficient to support West's convic-
tions for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distrib-
ute cocaine and conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering. See
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v.
Reyes, 157 F.3d 949, 955 (2d Cir. 1998) (providing standard); United
States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (provid-
ing standard), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 (1997). We find that the
district court did not clearly err in calculating the amount of drugs
attributable to West. See United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 55 (4th
Cir. 1996). The district court's admission of co-conspirators' testi-
mony, who testified in exchange for favorable treatment, was not
error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
732 (1993); United States v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.
1999) (en banc). Last, we find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the letters because West failed to show that the

                    2
probative value of the letters was outweighed by the danger of preju-
dice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

West has also filed a motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental
brief in which he contends that the Government knowingly presented
perjured testimony before the Grand Jury and that a fatal variance
existed between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial.
We grant his motion to file the supplemental brief. We have reviewed
West's brief and we find his contentions to be without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm West's convictions 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

                    3
