_____________ No. 95-3553WM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Michael D. Whitelaw, * * Appellant. *

_____________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western No. 95-3650WM District of Missouri.

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Steven Merritt, * *

Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: April 9, 1996 Filed: June 12, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Michael D. Whitelaw and Steven Merritt appeal their drug-relate d convictions. We affirm.
Whitelaw and Merritt contend the district court improperly admitted a substance into evidence that was seized when they were arrested and late r analyzed as cocaine because the Government

### -2-

failed to establish a proper chain of custody. We cannot agree. Whitelaw and Me rritt do not quarrel with the arresting officer's testimon y explaining how he seized, sealed, marked, and stored the packaged substanc e in a p olice evidence locker. Likewise, they do not quarrel with th e chemist's testimony a bout how he took the same marked and sealed bag from the cr ime laboratory vault, tested the substance inside, repackaged th e sub stance and the original bag in another sealed plastic container, an d the n returned the sealed container to the laboratory vault until trial
. Nor do they quarrel with the chemist's courtroom identification of th e seal ed container and all of its contents, or the arresting officer' s testimonythe bag he placed in the evidence locker was the same bag that was now inside the chemist's sealed container.
Accordin g to Whitelaw and Merritt, the chain of custody is fatall y flawed because the Government failed to track the bagged substance from th e evidence locker to the crime laboratory. Thus, they argue the custodial evidence d oes not show the chemist tested the substance seized by th e arresting officer. T heir argument is foreclosed by our contrary holdings in United States v. Pressley , 978 F.2d 1026, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 1992) and United St ates v. Glaze , 643 F.2d 549, 552 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam)
. Alt hough the Government could have easily avoided the problem raised i n this appeal by merely producing the persons who handled the bag during the gap in the Government 's custodial chain, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in admitting the cocaine o ver Whitelaw and Merritt's objectio n. Like the district court, we are satisfied that in al l reasona ble probability the substance seized by the arresting officer , tested by the chemist, and admitted into evidence is one and the same. Se e Pre ssley , 978 F.2d at 1028-29. Indeed, Merritt testified the substanc e seized by the arresting officer was cocaine, and neither Whitelaw no r Merritt claim the sub stance was tampered with, altered, or handled in bad faith by the Government. See United States v. Miller , 994 F.2d 441, 443-4 4 (8th Cir. 1993).

### -3- Whitelaw also contends the evidence is insufficient to support th e jury' s verdict on his drug-related firearm charge. Although we do no t ordinarily consider p ro se briefs when a party is represented by counsel, see United States v. Marx , 991 F.2d 1369, 1375 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 618 (1993), our review of the record shows overwhelming evidenc e of Whitelaw's guilt.
We thus affirm Whitelaw's and Merritt's convictions.
A true copy.

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