United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1148WM

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Vickie D. Gray, * * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: September 8, 1997

Filed: October 10, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, LAY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Vickie D. Gray appeals her convictions for conspiring to manufacture an d possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. We affirm. The facts are not complicated. Unbekno wnst to Gray, law enforcement officers were watching the rural building where Gray and her companions were engaged i n drug- related activities. When the officers closed in and searched the building, the y found chemicals, glassware, and other items used to make methamphetamine. Th e officers also found chemicals, glassware, and books about methamphetamin e manufacturing in Gray’s pickup truck, a large sum o f cash and a quantity of high-grade-2-

methamphetamine inconsistent with personal use in Gray’s purse, and empty bottles of a chemical used in manufacturing methamphetamine as well as other drug-related items in Gray’s home.
Fo r reversal, Gray contends the evidence was insufficient to support he r conv ictions. We disagree. The record contains abundant evidence from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt Gray's guilt on bo th charges. See United States v. McCrac ken , 110 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir. 1997). Also, our holding in United States v. Bell , 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996), forecloses G ray's argument that the Gove rnment failed to prove a connection between Gray’s drug activity an d interstate commerce.
Gra y also contends the district court's voir dire predisposed the jury to convict her. Specifically, the district court explained a grand jury's function before it asked the panel if anyone was “presently serving on a grand jury.” The district court' s exp lanation was neutral and never mentioned Gray or the indictment against her, and the district court instructed the jury not to consider Gray's indictment as evidence of her guilt. The district court did not deny Gray a fair trial by an impartial jury. See United States v. Disbrow , 768 F.2d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 1985). Next, Gray argues the Government's destruction of sealed bottles containing a ke y ingredient used to make methamphetamine violated her due process right t o examine a nd test the bottles' contents. Essentially, a drug enforcement agen t photographed

some sealed bottles containing ephedrine tablets, retained some bottles and tablets for laboratory testing, and destroyed the rest under his agency's policy. To succeed on her argument, Gray must show the Government destroyed the bottles and tab lets in bad faith. See United States v. Malbrough , 922 F.2d 458, 463 (8th Cir

. 199 0). Contrary to Gray's view, the agent did not act in bad faith when he destroyed the bottles under agency policy, particularly when he retained samples and-3-

photographed the b ottles he destroyed. See United States v. Scoggins , 992 F.2d 164, 167 (8th Cir. 1993). Gray also co mplains about the district court's refusal to give her requested jury instruction. Unlike Gray's instruction, the district court's instruction accurately stated the eleme nts the Government must prove to establish Gray's guilt for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See Eighth Circuit Model Crim. Jury Inst

. 6.21.841A (West 1996); United States v. Thomas , 58 F.3d 1318, 1322 (8th Cir. 1995). The di strict court properly rejected Gray's requested instruction because Gray faile d correctly to state the law. See United States v. McCoy , 86 F.3d 139, 141 (8th Cir

. 1996). Finally, Gr ay contends the district court improperly assigned a criminal history point for Gray's earlier municipal ordinance conviction for shoplifting. See U.S
. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(c)(1) (1995). Local ordinance violations that are also criminal offenses under st ate law count toward a defendant’s criminal history. See id. ; United States v. Hooks , 65 F.3d 850, 855-56 (10th Cir. 199 5), cert.denied , 116 S. Ct. 797 (1996). Gray recognizes her earlier local ordinance violation is a criminal offense under Missouri state law. SeeMo. Ann. Stat. § 570.030(1) (West 1979). That being so, we conclude the district co urt properly counted Gray's shoplifting conviction in computing her criminal history score. We affirm Gray's convictions and sentence. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.