The district court entered a judgment of conviction and 1

sentenced Nevarez to concurrent terms of 63-months imprisonment

on the distribution counts and a consecutive term of 60-months

imprisonment on the firearm count. 

___________

No. 95-2855

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Juan Carlos Nevarez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 13, 1996

 Filed: March 7, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LAY and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Carlos Nevarez was convicted of two counts of cocaine

distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of the

use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He appeals, challenging the district court's

1

exclusion of various evidence said to be related to his entrapment defense,

and the sufficiency of the evidence generally. We affirm.

Nevarez admitted the offenses for which he was convicted, but he

asserted as a defense that he was entrapped. The jury rejected this

defense and found the defendant guilty. On appeal, the defendant claims

the trial judge abused his discretion by excluding
 Moreover, the government also notes that the issue was 2

addressed in a Motion in Limine at the outset of trial, and that

Nevarez agreed not to inquire into the unknown informant's

identity so long as the government did not introduce evidence of

the September 29 meeting with one of the undercover officers. 

The government did not do so; however, defense counsel, on crossexamination, attempted to open up this line of inquiry with one

of the undercover officers. Since it complied with this

condition, the government argues, Nevarez waived his right to

object to the exclusion of this testimony. We agree.

-2-

certain evidence of inducement; he also asserts that there was insufficient

evidence of his predisposition to commit the crimes.

Nevarez argues that the identity of an informant who introduced him

to an undercover officer should have been disclosed. In addition, he urges

that evidence of separate investigative conduct of a known informant, Eddie

Rangl, should have been admitted. Finally, Nevarez urges that the amount

that Rangl was paid should have been admitted. It is urged that all of

this was relevant to his entrapment defense. 

Upon review of the overall record, we find the district court did not

abuse its discretion. Defendant's claim was that he was entrapped by

Rangl. We agree with the government that the identity of another

undisclosed informant was not relevant to the defendant's claim he was

entrapped by Rangl. Similarly, Rangl's conduct in other investigations, 2

which are not related to the drug sales involving Nevarez, is not relevant

to the claim that Rangl wrongfully induced him in this case. The amount

of money that Rangl was paid is likewise not relevant to inducement.

As to Nevarez's predisposition to commit the crimes charged, the

government produced evidence that defendant had previously been convicted

of a felony drug possession and that he had been selling cocaine and

marijuana for months before his arrest. There was abundant additional

evidence as well. 
-3-

The trial court submitted the issue of entrapment to the jury. The

jury rejected it. In our view, there was little evidence even to support

giving the entrapment instruction.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.