UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 98-4707
JOSE MARTINES, a/k/a Hosea
Martinos,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 98-4708
JESUS ALARCON LIZZAGARRO, a/k/a
Saul Tarra-Dominguez,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-92)

Submitted: February 16, 1999

Decided: June 18, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,
and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia; R. Clarke
Vandervoort, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Rebecca A.
Betts, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jose Martines and Jesus Lizzagarro appeal from their convictions
of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and aiding
and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine
and cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994), 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1)(1994) for
which they were sentenced to 262 months and 188 months imprison-
ment, respectively. The Appellants contend that the district court
erred in denying their motion in limine to preclude the anticipated
trial testimony of three prosecution witnesses who had been promised
immunity and lenient sentencing in exchange for their testimony.
Finding this claim to be without merit, we affirm.

In April 1988, a federal grand jury returned a three-count indict-
ment against the Appellants after a search of their residence revealed
a large quantity of methamphetamine and cocaine. Prior to the start
of their trial, the Appellants filed a motion in limine to preclude the
government from introducing or relying on the testimony of three
cooperating witnesses. The basis of their motion was that, pursuant to
the terms of their plea agreements, the witnesses received something
of value in exchange for their testimony and that, therefore, their plea
agreements violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994). Following an evi-

                    2
dentiary hearing, the district court denied their motion, finding that
(1) the government had made no promise of a substantial assistance
motion to any of the three witnesses, and (2) use immunity did not
constitute something of value as contemplated by§ 201(c)(2).

Section 201(c)(2) prohibits offering anything of value to a witness
in exchange for testimony. Every circuit that has addressed the Appel-
lants' argument has rejected it. See United States v. Singleton, ___
F.3d ___, 1999 WL 6469 (10th Cir. Jan. 8, 1999) (No. 97-3178) (en
banc); United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 1998);
United States v. Ware, 161 F.3d 414, 418-25 (6th Cir. 1998) (detailed
discussion). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not abuse
its discretion by admitting the testimony of the government's cooper-
ating witnesses. Therefore, we affirm the convictions. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
