UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4534

DERON MACK,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4635

DERON MACK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-96-38)

Submitted: March 11, 1997

Decided: March 27, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Kathleen M.
Kahoe, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Deron Mack, a prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of

Corrections at the Lorton Reformatory, appeals from his convictions

of prisoner possession of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(1994), and possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 13 (1994), assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-203(5)

(Michie 1994). He also appeals the district court's denial of his

motion for new trial. We find that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in allowing expert testimony concerning drug use and distribution at Lorton Reformatory and in denying the defendant's

motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.

Lorton Correctional Officer Segeant Anthony Banks observed

inmate Deron Mack acting suspiciously and attempting to hide something under a mattress. As Banks approached Mack, he attempted to

throw the item away. Banks seized the item: an old sock containing

what Banks believed to be contraband and United States currency.

Security Lieutenant King investigated further and removed from the

sock six small packets containing a white substance, a larger packet

containing a brownish substance, and $570 in cash. Testing revealed

that the white substance was heroin of 24% purity, and the brownish

substance was heroin of 81% purity. Thereafter, a jury convicted

Mack of prisoner possession of heroin and possession with intent to

distribute heroin, and the court sentenced him to supervised release

consecutive to his present sentence, along with a special assessment.

 2
On appeal, Mack contends that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of Captain Grillo because, he asserts,

Grillo's testimony was not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 704(b).

Contrary to Mack's characterization, Grillo did not opine as to an "intent to distribute." Instead, Grillo noted that Mack's possession of

$570, along with one packet of heroin of 81% purity and six packets

of heroin of 24% purity indicated a distribution network. Because

Grillo's testimony as to the modus operandi of drug traffickers within

Lorton was permissible, we find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in allowing the testimony. See United States v.

Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 589 (4th Cir. 1994).

Mack also challenges the district court's denial of his motion for

new trial. Mack contends that the discovery of an error made by the

Government's fingerprint expert in a separate case more than a year

prior to Mack's trial entitles him to a new trial. We review the district

court's denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Singh, 54 F.3d 1182, 1190 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court

determined that Mack failed to meet the required standard for granting a new trial. See United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th

Cir. 1989). Because the information about the error in the earlier case

was not material to the issue of whether Mack possessed heroin with

intent to distribute, was merely impeaching, and would probably not

produce an acquittal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Mack's motion for new trial based on the

ground of newly discovered evidence. See United States v. Chavis,

880 F.2d at 793.

Mack's convictions are accordingly affirmed. 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