UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4905

MICHAEL ANTHONY SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-252)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: August 7, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jonathan Shapiro, LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN SHAPIRO, P.C.,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Rod J. Rosenstein, Assistant United States Attorney, Jan

Paul Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,

for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Smith was convicted by a jury of possession with intent

to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1)(West 1999), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1)

(West 2000), and using and carrying of a firearm in connection with

a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000). He

received two concurrent 160-month sentences and a consecutive 60-

month sentence, respectively.

On appeal, Smith first maintains that the district court improperly

admitted certain "bad acts" evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Specifically, Smith challenges the court's admission into evidence of a

prior conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute,

and a co-conspirator's testimony that Smith sold him cocaine a month

prior to the subject incident and that Smith asked him to lie when they

were in jail together. The appellant's argument that co-conspirator

testimony about appellant's jail-house statement must be excluded is

wholly without merit. Moreover, the district court sustained the

defense objection to the testimony and gave a curative instruction to

the jury. Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator testimony regarding a prior drug

purchase to show context and modus operandi, and that evidence of

a prior conviction satisfied the test for admissibility under Rule

404(b). See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir.

1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1101 (1998). Additionally, we find that

the police's questioning of Smith regarding his employment status

was a part of routine booking questions and therefore did not violate

Smith's Fifth Amendment rights. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S.

291, 301 (1980); United States v. Taylor, 799 F.2d 126, 128 (4th Cir.

1986).

We further find, based on the totality of the circumstances, that

Smith's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated given that the

 2
police's stop of Smith was supported by articulable suspicion that

Smith was engaged in criminal activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.

1, 21 (1968). We also reject Smith's challenge to the jury instructions

regarding knowing possession of a firearm. See United States v. Bostian, 59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir. 1995) (jury instructions must be

reviewed in their entirety and as part of the whole trial). Last, we find

no abuse of discretion in the court's admission of expert testimony

regarding drug dealing. See United States v. King, 768 F.2d 586, 588

(4th Cir. 1985) (trial judge has wide discretion in balancing the probative value of evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice under

Fed. R. Evid. 403).

Accordingly, we affirm Smith's convictions and sentences. 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