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 United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * v. * * James Dewey Hambrick, * * Appellant.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

___________TheHonorable 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 wer e char ged with aiding and abetting the distribution o f crack coca ine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal, Higgins challenges the sentenc e imp osed on him by the district court after he pleade d 1 guilty, an d Hambrick challenges his conviction following a jury trial. We affirm. Higgins argues, as h e did below, that the Guidelines sent encing scheme, which imposes a 100-to-1 ratio fo r crac k cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine offenses , violate s his Fifth Amendment right to due process an d equa l protection. This challenge is foreclosed by ou r prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of th e 100- to-1 ratio, see, e.g. , United States v. Carter , 9 1 F.3d 1196, 1197-99 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Unite d States v. Jackson , 67 F.3d 1359, 1367 (8th Cir. 1995) , cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 1684 (1996), and we are bound by those ruli ngs, 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. 8 4 (1997). Hambrick challenges his conviction on the basis that the court & s aiding-and-abetting jury instruction failed t o indic ate that one who is merely a knowing spectato r-3-

canno t be found guilty of aiding and abetting. We wil l reverse a district court on an instructional issue onl y when t he court has abused its wide discretion i n formulatin g 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 th e 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 t imely submitted, adequately states the law, and i s supported by the evidence, the defendant is not entitled to a particularly worded instruction where th e inst ruction given by the district court adequately an d corre ctlycovers the substance of the requeste d instruc tion. See United States v. Williams , 109 F.3 d 502, 508 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 303 (1997).
The court & s instructions required the jury to find--i n orde r to conclude he was guilty--that Hambrick wa s pres ent, knew the crime was being committed, an d knowinglyassisted that crime. The instruction s corr ectlystated the elements of the offense an d permitt ed Hambrick to argue his theory of defense. Th e court d id not abuse its discretion in instructing th e jury.

Acco rdingly, we affirm Higgins & s sentence an d Hambrick & s conviction. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.