United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

__________

No. 97-2612

__________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

Joe Willis Higgins, *

 *

Appellant. *

__________

 Appeals from the United

States

No. 97-2614 District Court for the

__________ Eastern District of

Arkansas.

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

James Dewey Hambrick, *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 17,

1998

 Filed: March 23,

1998

___________
The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern

1

District of Arkansas. 

-2-

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe Willis Higgins and James Dewey Hambrick were

charged with aiding and abetting the distribution of

crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18

U.S.C. § 2. On appeal, Higgins challenges the sentence

imposed on him by the district court after he pleaded

1

guilty, and Hambrick challenges his conviction following

a jury trial. We affirm. 

Higgins argues, as he did below, that the Guidelines

sentencing scheme, which imposes a 100-to-1 ratio for

crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine offenses,

violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process and

equal protection. This challenge is foreclosed by our

prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of the

100-to-1 ratio, see, e.g., United States v. Carter, 91

F.3d 1196, 1197-99 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United

States v. Jackson, 67 F.3d 1359, 1367 (8th Cir. 1995),

cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1684 (1996), and we are bound by

those rulings, see United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654,

660 (8th Cir.) (one Eighth Circuit panel may not overrule

another panel&s decision), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 84

(1997). 

Hambrick challenges his conviction on the basis that

the court&s aiding-and-abetting jury instruction failed to

indicate that one who is merely a knowing spectator
-3-

cannot be found guilty of aiding and abetting. We will

reverse a district court on an instructional issue only

when the court has abused its wide discretion in

formulating jury instructions, and we will not disturb a

jury&s verdict if the instructions, viewed as a whole,

fairly and adequately contain the law applicable to the

case. See United States v. Cunningham, 83 F.3d 218, 221

(8th Cir. 1996). Although a defendant is entitled to
-4-

have a requested instruction submitted to the jury if it

is timely submitted, adequately states the law, and is

supported by the evidence, the defendant is not entitled

to a particularly worded instruction where the

instruction given by the district court adequately and

correctly covers the substance of the requested

instruction. See United States v. Williams, 109 F.3d

502, 508 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 303 (1997).

The court&s instructions required the jury to find--in

order to conclude he was guilty--that Hambrick was

present, knew the crime was being committed, and

knowingly assisted that crime. The instructions

correctly stated the elements of the offense and

permitted Hambrick to argue his theory of defense. The

court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the

jury.

Accordingly, we affirm Higgins&s sentence and

Hambrick&s conviction.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.