* Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 95-50777

(Summary Calendar)

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JIMMIE A. EASTLAND, also known as

Jimmy Eastland,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(W-94-CR-2)

_______________________________________________

August 8, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmie A. Eastland appeals his conviction and sentence for

conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He argues that the

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the court

erred in attributing quantities of cocaine to him for sentencing

purposes, that the court erroneously admitted into evidence a
-2-

coconspirator's hearsay testimony, and that the district judge

improperly reassigned the case to himself for trial.

We have reviewed the arguments and the record and find no

reversible error as to his insufficient-evidence claim. See United

States v. Bermea, 30 F.2d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that

in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, court must affirm if

evidence establishes that a reasonable juror could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), cert. denied, 115 S.

Ct. 1113, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1077 (1995). As to the argument that the

district court erred in determining the quantity of drugs

attributable to Eastland, we note that Eastland was sentenced to

the statutory minimum for conspiring to distribute five grams of

cocaine base, also known as "crack" cocaine. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(B). The district court's finding that Eastland was

directly involved in a drug transaction involving 5.61 grams of

"crack" cocaine is amply supported by the evidence. Therefore, any

error in the calculation of the total drugs attributable to

Eastland was harmless. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S.

193, 203, 112 S. Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1992)

(holding that any error in applying Sentencing Guidelines is

harmless unless it "affect[s] the district court's selection of the

sentence imposed"). Additionally, any error as to the admission of

allegedly hearsay testimony was harmless. See United States v. ElZoubi, 993 F.2d 442, 446 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that the
-3-

admission of hearsay testimony is harmful only if it substantially

impacts the jury's verdict). Finally, Eastland lacks standing to

challenge the judge's reassignment order and cannot in any event

show plain error. See United States v. Royals, 777 F.2d 1089, 1091

(5th Cir. 1985) (holding that a defendant does not have standing to

challenge the designation of a particular district judge); United

States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 163-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc)

(articulating plain error standard for unobjected-to errors), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266, 131 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1995).

AFFIRMED.