UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM MITCHEL FRAZIER, a/k/a
                                                                         No. 99-4109
Bilan Littles, a/k/a Bilal Littles,
a/k/a Brian Littles, a/k/a William
Howard Walker, a/k/a Billy Frazier,
a/k/a William Mitchell Frazier,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CR-98-25)

Submitted: October 8, 1999

Decided: November 8, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Oldric J. Labell, Jr., Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Kevin M. Comstock, Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William Mitchell Frazier appeals from his conviction for passing
counterfeit United States currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472
(1994). On appeal he argues that his right to counsel was violated, the
court erred in denying his counsel's motion to withdraw, and disputes
numerous evidentiary rulings. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find that the court did not deny Frazier his right to counsel in
allowing him to testify in a narrative form without direct examination
by defense counsel. The court gave adequate safeguards and warnings
to ensure a fair trial and that the form of testimony did not amount
to a denial of counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). We find that the court
did not abuse its discretion by denying defense counsel's motion to
withdraw. See United States v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907, 918 (4th Cir.
1995); United States v. Corporan-Cuevas, 35 F.3d 953, 956 (4th Cir.
1994).

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making
the disputed evidentiary rulings. The felony and larceny convictions
and alias evidence were properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)
and Fed. R. Evid. 609. The evidence of alleged threats Frazier made
to Shauna Howard were also properly admitted. See United States v.
Billups, 692 F.2d 320, 329-30 (4th Cir. 1982). Finally, we find that
the court's rulings on the defense's exhibit of a U-Haul receipt were
proper and without prejudice to Frazier.

We therefore affirm the judgment. We dispense 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
