United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 95-2851

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Bruce A. Banks, also known as Bee, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 1997 Filed: December 12, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Bruc e A. Banks was charged in a four-count superseding indictment with conspiring to di stribute cocaine base (“crack”), cocaine, and marijuana, from January 1994 to August 1994, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846; with aiding an d abetting an August 11, 1994, a ttempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violat ion of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; with aiding and abetting an August 11, 1994, attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violatio n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and with aiding and abetting theThe Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1 the Western District of Missouri. -2- August 11, 1994, use of a communication facility to facilitate the commission of a drug crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. A jury found Banks guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 235 months’ imprisonment and 1 five years’ supervised release. Banks appeals his conviction and sentence, and w e affirm. We conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to th e gover nment, was sufficient to support Banks & s conviction on the conspiracy charge
. See Unit ed States v. Cunningham , 83 F.3d 218, 222 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard o f review). The testimony of Ba nks & s co-conspirator--whose credibility was a matter for the jury--established that Banks affirmatively cooperated in the obje ct of the conspiracy from January 1994 to August 1994. See United States v. Jackson , 959 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 852 (1992); Unit ed States v. Braidlow , 806 F.2d 781, 784 (8th Cir. 1986). As to Banks & s sentence, the district court did not commit clear error in finding an other co-conspirator & s April 27 sale of crack and marijuana to an undercove r detective w as reasonably foreseeable to Banks as within the scope of his agreemen t wit h his co-conspirators. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B ) (1995); United States v. Ortiz , 125 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 1997). In addition, there was unco ntradicted evidence at trial establishing that the cocaine base involved wa s crack. We further conclude that the district court & s finding that Banks was “a n organizer or leader of a criminal acti vity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive,” seeU. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (1995), was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Maxwell , 25 F.3d 1389, 1399-1400 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 610 (1994) ; United States v. Roberts , 953 F.2d 351, 354-3-

(8th Cir.) (sentencing court entitled to rely on evidence presented at trial), cert. denied , 505 U.S. 1210 (1992). Last, contrary to Banks & s view, the record demonstrates that he was arraigned on both the original and superseding indictments. The judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
.