* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EXDONOVAN PEAK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:96-CR-36-GR)

March 2, 1998

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

In this direct criminal appeal, defendant-appellant Exdonovan

Peak complains that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was

violated when the district court failed to ensure adequately that

Peak’s waiver of his right to conflict-free representatio n was2

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. In addition, Peak claims that

the district court erred in conducting voir dire in a manner that

would ensure that no juror would be prejudiced against Peak by

virtue of the pending indictment of Peak’s attorney and in failing

to question individual jurors after the court dismissed a juror for

a conflict. Peak further asserts that his conviction should be

overturned because of the prosecuto r allegedly induced Peak to

testify as to the veracity of other witnesses and engaged in

impermissible expression of personal opinions during closing

argument. Regarding his sentence, Peak asserts error on the part

of the district court in its determination of the quantity of drugs

involved and in its imposition of a fine.

We have carefully studied the facts as revealed in the briefs

of counsel and in pertinent parts of the record of the proceedings

in the district court, and we have heard and well-considered the

excellent arguments and explanations by counse l during oral

argument and in their briefs to this court, as a result of which we

are convinced that the district court committed no reversible error

in the conduct of the trial or in the imposition of sentence. Our

comfort in these conclusions rests in large part on, inter alia,

Peak’s age, education and sophistication, and in his presence in

the community where his counsel practiced law and participated in

public life; by Peak’s obvious understanding of the colloquy with

the district court regarding conflict-free representation; by the

district court’s careful voir dire which, of necessity, treaded the3

narrow path between, on the one hand, making inquiries of potential

jury members sufficient to determine which of them k new defense

counsel and whether their knowledge would affect their ability to

give defendant a fair trial, and, on the other hand, avoiding

utterances about defense counsel that m ight prejudice the jurors

against the defendant because of his counsel’s criminal indictment;

and by the manner in which the district court determined that the

dismissed juror had not discussed his conflict with any of the

other jurors. And, although we continue to be seriously concerned

with the apparent disregard by some of the prosecutors in the

office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of

Mississippi of those admonitions we have given previously for

misconduct in the manner with which they proceed in criminal

prosecutions —— and we again caution counsel that such antics may

in the future lead to reversal of convictions and other sanctions

—— any errors along that line in the instant prosecution clearly

fall short of the degree of egregiousness required to justify

reversal. Finally, there appears to be sufficient evidence to

support the court’s finding s regarding the quantity of drugs

involved and the imposition of the fine levied. Our examination of

the presentence investigation report does not support the

contention of appellate counsel for Peak regarding the impropriety

of imposing a fine, Peak’s eventual ability to pay, or any

recommended amount of fine.

For the foregoing reasons, Peak’s conviction and sentence are,4

in all respects,

AFFIRMED.