UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 96-4736

CHARLES LEROY JONES, JR., a/k/a

Pooh,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-75-A)

Argued: October 3, 1997

Decided: December 16, 1997

Before RUSSELL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Suzanne Little, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter

Hugh White, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Glen A. Trimper, Fairfax,

Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,

James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorney, John David

Kuchta, Special Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Charles Leroy Jones of conspiracy to distribute

cocaine, using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking

crime, and undertaking related monetary transactions including

money laundering. Jones claims the district court failed to properly

instruct the jury and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his

conviction of conspiracy to distribute drugs. We affirm.

I

In count 3, the indictment charged that Jones engaged in a monetary transaction, affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000--the purchase

of a BMW with drug proceeds--violating 18 U.S.C.§ 1957 (1994).

Counts 4 and 5 contained the same allegations with respect to a

Mercedes-Benz and a Toyota Cressida.

Jones claims that the district court did not instruct the jury that an

effect on interstate commerce is a required element for conviction

under § 1957.

Jones is mistaken. The court instructed the jury that with respect

to counts 3, 4, and 5, the government must prove"that the defendant

engaged in a monetary transaction, in criminally derived property

having a value in excess of $10,000." JA 281. The court then

explained to the jury that a monetary transaction is a "transfer or

exchange in or affecting interstate commerce of funds or a monetary

instrument." § 1957(f)(1). The court elaborated on the meaning of "interstate commerce" in other parts of the instruction. The court adequately explained to the jury the government's obligation of proving

that the monetary transactions must affect interstate commerce.

 2
II

Jones also claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and that he was

involved only in the independent sale of drugs.

A jury verdict "must be sustained if there is substantial evidence,

taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it."

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). The government

presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that Jones

participated in a conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). The government presented evidence of

Jones' relationship with Terry Barker, Dexter Blackstock, and others.

Barker testified that he would often give Jones a car with a secret

compartment that contained drugs and would take Jones' car until

Jones had unloaded the drugs. Barker would front the drugs and await

return of the car with money in it. Sometimes Barker and Jones rode

together to sell. They also traveled together to have secret compartments installed in one of Jones' other vehicles. Barker explained that

Jones would "take care" of all the drugs he brought back from New

York, and he estimated that, at one point, Jones was taking care of

about a kilogram of crack every two weeks. Blackstock corroborated

part of Barker's testimony by testifying that he was present at some

transactions between Barker and Jones.

A jury could reasonably conclude from this evidence that Jones

was involved in a conspiracy to distribute drugs.

AFFIRMED

 3