UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4161

SCOTT ALLEN SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-99-49)

Submitted: July 25, 2000

Decided: August 7, 2000

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter

C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Scott Allen Smith appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and possession of cocaine base with the

intent to distribute. Smith raises two issues on appeal: (1) that the district court erred in not dismissing the entire jury panel following one

juror's statement that Smith "wouldn't be this far if he hadn't done

something;" and (2) that the district court erred in giving a flight

instruction. We affirm.

A trial court's findings of juror impartiality may"be overturned

only for manifest error." Mu'Min v. Virginia , 500 U.S. 415, 428

(1991) (finding no error in trial judge's refusal to question prospective

jurors about specific contents of news reports they had observed)

(internal quotations omitted). Thus, a decision on whether to strike an

entire jury panel is reviewed for a manifest abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Trujillio, 146 F.3d 838, 842 (11th Cir. 1998).

Because the record demonstrates that the district court carefully

explained the presumption of innocence to the jury three times, and

specifically asked if any jurors felt influenced by the one prospective

juror's statements, to which it received a negative response, we find

that the district court did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion

in denying Smith's motion to strike the entire jury panel.

Addressing the flight instruction, this court reviews a district

court's decision to deliver a flight instruction for abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1107 (4th Cir. 1993). A

flight instruction is appropriate when "[t]he chain of inferences leading from evidence of flight to consciousness of guilt . . . [leads] to

consciousness of guilt of the crime charged." United States v. Porter,

821 F.2d 968, 976 (4th Cir. 1987). Reviewing the facts of Smith's

case under this standard, we find no abuse of discretion in the district

court's decision to instruct the jury on flight.

Accordingly, we affirm Smith's conviction. 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