_____________

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-related

convictions. We affirm.

Whitelaw and Merritt contend the district court improperly admitted

a substance into evidence that was seized when they were arrested and later

analyzed as cocaine because the Government
-2-

failed to establish a proper chain of custody. We cannot agree. Whitelaw

and Merritt do not quarrel with the arresting officer's testimony

explaining how he seized, sealed, marked, and stored the packaged substance

in a police evidence locker. Likewise, they do not quarrel with the

chemist's testimony about how he took the same marked and sealed bag from

the crime laboratory vault, tested the substance inside, repackaged the

substance and the original bag in another sealed plastic container, and

then returned the sealed container to the laboratory vault until trial.

Nor do they quarrel with the chemist's courtroom identification of the

sealed container and all of its contents, or the arresting officer's

testimony the bag he placed in the evidence locker was the same bag that

was now inside the chemist's sealed container.

According to Whitelaw and Merritt, the chain of custody is fatally

flawed because the Government failed to track the bagged substance from the

evidence locker to the crime laboratory. Thus, they argue the custodial

evidence does not show the chemist tested the substance seized by the

arresting officer. Their argument is foreclosed by our contrary holdings

in United States v. Pressley, 978 F.2d 1026, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 1992) and

United States v. Glaze, 643 F.2d 549, 552 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).

Although the Government could have easily avoided the problem raised in

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 over Whitelaw and Merritt's

objection. Like the district court, we are satisfied that in all

reasonable probability the substance seized by the arresting officer,

tested by the chemist, and admitted into evidence is one and the same. See

Pressley, 978 F.2d at 1028-29. Indeed, Merritt testified the substance

seized by the arresting officer was cocaine, and neither Whitelaw nor

Merritt claim the substance was tampered with, altered, or handled in bad

faith by the Government. See United States v. Miller, 994 F.2d 441, 443-44

(8th Cir. 1993).
-3-

Whitelaw also contends the evidence is insufficient to support the

jury's verdict on his drug-related firearm charge. Although we do not

ordinarily consider pro 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 evidence

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.