UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4285

ALFRED IBIDA, a/k/a Fred,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-266-JFM)

Submitted: January 9, 1997

Decided: January 22, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James J. Nolan, Jr., PIERSON, PIERSON & NOLAN, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,

Robert R. Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Ibida appeals from his jury convictions of importing heroin,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) (1994), conspiracy to import heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994). Ibida claims that the evidence at trial was

insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In addition, he contends that

the district court clearly erred by denying his challenge to the Government's use of preemptory strikes on three potential black jurors under

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). For the reasons discussed

below, we affirm.

"To sustain a conviction the evidence, when viewed in the light

most favorable to the government, must be sufficient for a rational

trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond

a reasonable doubt." United States v. Brewer , 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th

Cir. 1993); see also Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).

Circumstantial as well as direct evidence is considered, and the Government is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the

facts proven to those sought to be established. United States v.

Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence showed that Ibida orchestrated at least four trips

to Nigeria to smuggle heroin back into the United States. He arranged

for the couriers' plane tickets, met the couriers in Nigeria, introduced

them to the heroin supplier, instructed the couriers on how to swallow

the drugs and comport themselves in Nigeria, met the couriers at an

airport in the United States, and paid the couriers in cash. Ibida also

instructed one courier to leave the country when other couriers had

been arrested. One courier testified that he imported "narcotics,"

while another stated that the purpose of his trip was to import "her-

 2
oin." However, no lab reports were entered into evidence regarding

the chemical makeup of the substance involved.

Ibida asserts that the Government failed to prove that heroin was

the drug involved in his crimes. While he does not deny that the substance was illicit, he claims that there is no proof that it was indeed

heroin. Construing the above evidence in the light most favorable to

the Government, we find that there was sufficient evidence to support

Ibida's convictions. The Government was required to prove that Ibida

knowingly imported a controlled substance, conspired to do the same,

and conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The question of which controlled substance was

involved is irrelevant. See United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez, 875

F.2d 772, 774 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Collado-Gomez, 834

F.2d 280, 280-81 (2d Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Hines, 717

F.2d 1481, 1487-88 (4th Cir. 1983) (as long as substance involved is

a "controlled substance," the chemical makeup is irrelevant). The

manner in which the couriers concealed the substance, Ibida's furtive

behavior, and the couriers' testimony that they were trafficking in

controlled substances is sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find

that Ibida knew he was dealing in a controlled substance and had

agreed with the couriers to do the same.

Regarding Ibida's Batson challenge, we find that the district court

did not clearly err by finding that the Government's articulated reasons for striking the three jurors were race-neutral: age, attitude, inattention, and either working or living in a high crime area. See Purkett

v. Elem, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3814, 3815 (U.S. May 15, 1995)

(No. 94-802) (per curiam). We also find that the district court did not

clearly err by finding that Ibida failed to demonstrate discriminatory

intent by the Government. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352,

364 (1991) (ultimate burden of showing purposeful discrimination

rests with the opponent of the strike, and the credibility determinations of the district court are entitled to great deference).

Accordingly, we affirm Ibida's convictions. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3