UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4149

ROBERT ALLEN MERRITT,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4177

ELIZABETH TAYLOR GRADY,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4196

THOMAS ELMORE HARRIS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen Sr., District Judge.

(CR-95-213)

Argued: January 30, 1998

Decided: April 22, 1998
Before RUSSELL* and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER,

United States District Judge for the

District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Ellen Payne Quackenbos, SKADDEN, ARPS,

MEAGHER & FLOM, L.L.P., New York, New York; W. David

Lloyd, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. Robert Michael

Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mark S. Cheffo, New York, New

York, for Appellant Grady; William C. Ingram, FLOYD, ALLEN &

JACOBS, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant Merritt.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, Robert Allen Merritt ("Merritt"), Elizabeth Taylor Grady ("Grady") and Thomas Elmore Harris ("Harris"),

collectively "defendants," appeal their convictions for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C.A.

_________________________________________________________________

*Judge Russell participated in the hearing of this case at oral argument

but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by

a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

 2
§ 846 (West Supp. 1997) and possession of crack cocaine base, see

21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1981). We affirm.

I.

Merritt, Grady, and Harris were convicted of operating a crack distribution group and crack house in Carrboro, North Carolina, near the

University of North Carolina's Chapel Hill campus. In early 1994,

Carrboro police officers apprehended University of North Carolina

student Dennis McDowell (the "informant") in possession of crack

cocaine, who later agreed to assist police and the Drug Enforcement

Administration by acting as an informant in drug investigations. At

the time, the informant had known Grady, Merritt and Harris for

approximately nine months. At the request of police, the informant

called Grady's residence on numerous occasions to arrange purchases

of crack cocaine and its delivery to parking lots near Grady's residence. The deliveries were made by Merritt, Harris, or a third "runner," Eddie Atwater ("Atwater"). The telephone calls and deliveries

were recorded, and the deliveries were witnessed by law enforcement

officers. A joint indictment was returned in August 1995 against

Grady, Merritt, Harris and Atwater, alleging a conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute crack cocaine, as well as possession of crack

cocaine.1

II.

We first address two issues raised by all defendants concerning the

district court's admission of evidence at trial. We affirm as to each.2

_________________________________________________________________

1 All defendants were convicted of Count 1 of the indictment, for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. The remainder

of the counts were for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.

Grady was convicted of Count 2, Merritt was convicted of Counts 2

through 5, and Harris was convicted of Counts 4 and 5. At the time of

trial, Atwater was awaiting separate trial for his alleged participation in

the conspiracy.

2 Defendants also collectively challenge 21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 2D1.1

of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which impose a 100 to 1

ratio in the penalties for cocaine and cocaine base. Contending that the

provisions contain an ambiguity in the application of the penalties,

 3
A.

Defendants first contend that the district court erred in admitting

into evidence an anonymous note that had been seized during the execution of a search warrant at defendant Grady's residence. Defendants

contend the note was hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801(c), and that it

should have been excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 403. We review the

district court's rulings for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Whittington, 26 F.3d 456, 465 (4th Cir. 1994).

Documents found in a defendant's possession may be admitted, not

to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but "to show the circumstantial relationship of the parties to the scene, the contraband or other

parties." United States v. Marino, 658 F.2d 1120, 1124 (6th Cir.

1981). Furthermore, a document found in a defendant's possession

may be admissible as an "adoptive admission" under Fed.R.Evid.

801(d)(2)(B). "Just as silence in the face of an accusation may constitute an admission to its truth, possession of a written statement

becomes an adoption of its contents." Marino , 658 F.2d at 1125. "[S]o

long as the surrounding circumstances tie the possessor and the document together in some meaningful way, the possessor may be found

to have adopted the writing and embraced its contents." United States

v. Paulino, 13 F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 1994). Such adoptive admissions

are not hearsay and are properly admitted into evidence. See e.g., id.

at 22-25 (customer receipt for a Postal Service money order found in

apartment used as a drug distribution outlet was admissible as an

adoptive admission); United States v. Ospina, 739 F.2d 448, 451 (9th

Cir. 1984) (business cards with handwritten notes and motel receipt

found in defendant's hotel room were admissible as adoptive admissions). Here, the anonymous note was addressed to"Lit," Grady's

nickname. It was found in a dresser drawer in a bedroom containing

a woman's clothing, along with other documents bearing Grady's

name, including a county tax receipt. The author of the note, albeit

_________________________________________________________________

defendants argue that the rule of lenity requires a sentencing court to

impose the lesser penalty. Defendants, however, concede that this issue

was decided adversely to their position in United States v. Fisher, 58

F.3d 96, 98-99 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we find no merit to this

exception.

 4
unknown, was clearly desirous of obtaining "rock" cocaine.3 We are

satisfied that the content of the note and its location sufficiently tie

the document to Grady and her co-conspirators, and is consistent with

other evidence that defendants were operating a crack distribution

business from Grady's residence. Accordingly, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in admitting the note as evidence.

Defendants also contend that the district court should have

excluded the note under Fed.R.Evid. 403, asserting that its probative

value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. We disagree. The note, addressed to Grady and obviously evidencing drug

activity, was admitted as additional evidence of Grady's knowledge

of and participation in the drug conspiracy and to corroborate the

taped drug negotiations between defendants and the informant.

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the note's probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect

and in admitting it into evidence.

B.

Defendants next contend that the district court erred in admitting

tape recordings of telephone conversations between the informant and

defendants to set up controlled crack purchases, alleging the government failed to properly authenticate the tapes. Decisions of the district

court to admit tape recordings into evidence are reviewed for an abuse

of discretion, and we will not find error unless the foundation for

admission is "clearly insufficient to insure the accuracy of the recording." United States v. Branch, 970 F.2d 1368, 1372 (4th Cir. 1992)

(internal quotation marks omitted). In determining the admissibility of

a recording, courts are guided by seven factors outlined in United

States v. McKeever, 169 F. Supp. 426 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), rev'd on other

grounds, 271 F.2d 669 (2d Cir. 1959).4 Defendants argue that in order

_________________________________________________________________

3 The note was written on an envelope and read as follows: "Lit, I have

paid Lucille rent and turned her heat on. I am going to the motel for one

more night and get some rest by myself, so give me five rocks and

$20.00 and we will ... add it up tomorrow." J.A. 430.

4 The specific factors are:

(1) That the recording device was capable of taking the conversation now offered in evidence.

 5
to authenticate the recordings the government was also required to

show that the informant listened to the tapes immediately after the

recording and again immediately prior to his testimony at trial. This

court has never embraced this position; rather, recordings are admissible so long as the testimony is "sufficient to support a finding by the

jury that the tapes [are] what the Government claimed." Branch, 970

F.2d at 1372. Here the government established how the calls and

recordings were made, and demonstrated a chain of custody for each.

Additionally, the government played the tapes for the informant on

the morning of trial and confirmed that the tapes accurately reflected

the conversations that had occurred. Accordingly, we conclude the

district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tapes as evidence.

III.

Defendant Grady has independently raised several additional

exceptions to her convictions and sentence. We address and reject

each in turn.

_________________________________________________________________

(2) That the operator of the device was competent to operate the

device.

(3) That the recording is authentic and correct.

(4) That changes, additions or deletions have not been made in

the recording.

(5) That the recording has been preserved in a manner that is

shown to the court.

(6) That the speakers are identified.

(7) That the conversation elicited was made voluntarily and in

good faith, without any kind of inducement.

Branch, 970 F.2d at 1371, n.3 (quoting McKeever, 169 F. Supp. at 430);

see also United States v. Long, 651 F.2d 239, 242 (4th Cir. 1981). The

factors provide guidance to the trial judge in ruling on an authentication

question; however, proof of each factor is not required in every case. See

Branch, 970 F.2d at 1371-72.

 6
A.

Grady was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute crack

cocaine from August 1994 to August 1995, and of possession with

intent to distribute crack cocaine on December 8, 1994. She contends

the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support her convictions. We disagree. The evidence revealed that Grady was directly

involved in at least three undercover purchases of crack cocaine by

the informant. On September 14, 1994, the informant called Grady's

residence and asked if she could "do five" rocks of crack cocaine.

After Grady confirmed that she could, she gave the telephone to Merritt to arrange a meeting place and Merritt did, in fact, deliver five

rocks of crack cocaine to the informant shortly thereafter. The informant paid Merritt $100 for 5 rocks of crack cocaine at $20.00 per

rock. On October 13, 1994, the informant again called Grady, advised

her that he wanted to get "[f]ifteen," and told her that he had "300

beans." The informant testified that "300 beans" meant 300 dollars --

15 rocks of crack cocaine at $20 each. Grady asked him when he

wanted to get it and, upon being told that he wanted it "sometime

tonight," she told him, "Well, let us know." In a second conversation,

Grady assured the informant that she would wrap the crack in "brown

wrapper or something" and Atwater later delivered crack cocaine to

the informant. On December 8, 1994, the informant called Grady a

third time to purchase crack cocaine and Merritt later delivered one

$20 rock. In addition to these transactions, the informant set up several purchases directly with Harris and Merritt during 1994 and 1995,

which originated from Grady's residence and were witnessed by law

enforcement officials. An ensuing search warrant, executed at

Grady's residence on August 30, 1995, uncovered the handwritten

note addressed to Grady which evidenced an additional drug transaction between her and an unknown buyer.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask

"whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of facts could have found the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Tresvant, 677

F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982) (emphasis in original). We are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support each of Grady's convictions.

 7
B.

Grady also challenges her sentence on three separate grounds. We

address these contentions in turn.

Grady first urges that we vacate her sentence and remand her case

for resentencing because the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P

32(c)(3)(A) by neglecting to expressly inquire as to whether she had

reviewed and discussed her presentence report with counsel.5 Because

this issue was not raised before the district court, we review it under

the plain error standard. See United States v. Lockhart, 58 F.3d 86, 88

(4th Cir. 1995). "[B]efore vacating [Grady's] sentence, we must be

convinced that (1) an error was committed; (2) the error was plain;

and (3) the error affected Grady's substantial rights." Id. If so, "we

must also decide whether the error is of a type that`seriously affect[s]

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'"

Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). In the

instant case, there is nothing in the record which affirmatively demonstrates that Grady read the presentence report and discussed it with

her counsel before being sentenced. As a result, we are forced to conclude that the district court committed plain error. See Lockhart, 58

F.3d at 88-89. However, we must still determine whether the error

affected the outcome of Grady's sentencing hearing, i.e. whether it

was prejudicial. Id. at 88-89.

We note first that Grady does not contend that she did not read the

report, or that she did not discuss its contents with her counsel prior

to sentencing. Instead, she proceeds directly to the argument that she

could have challenged the attribution of 30 grams of crack cocaine to

her for sentencing purposes, contending that the distribution of this

amount during the conspiracy was not foreseeable as to her. This

argument is unavailing. Under the sentencing guidelines, a "defendant

should be held accountable for the conduct of others that was both in

furtherance of the conspiracy and reasonably foreseeable in connection with the conspiracy." United States v. D'Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 614

(4th Cir. 1994). Thus, the amount that may be attributed to Grady is

_________________________________________________________________

5 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(A) requires the sentencing court to "verify that the defendant and defendant's counsel have read

and discussed the presentence report."

 8
not limited to the amounts for which she personally took orders. See

id. Grady's presentence report outlines, in detail, sixteen crack

cocaine purchases that were made from the conspiracy group. Testimony at trial showed clearly that the vast majority of the purchases

originated from Grady's house, which the evidence revealed to be the

center of operations for the drug enterprise. As evidenced by the tape

recordings, Grady was directly involved in at least three controlled

drug buys, and in these three, two different runners were dispatched

to deliver the drugs to the informant. Thus, the only reasonable inference from the evidence presented to the jury was that she was an

active participant in the drug distribution conspiracy, and the jury so

found.

Grady did not testify at trial, but did choose to address the district

court judge at sentencing. She contended she was not involved with

her two co-defendants and had been trying to get them to quit. She

specifically denied to the district court judge participating in any

drug-related calls for drugs:

THE COURT:Are you saying that you didn't

take any telephone calls dealing

with somebody wanting to purchase drugs?

DEFENDANT GRADY:Not as I know of.

J.A. 450. Grady can hardly be prejudiced by a lack of opportunity to

present evidence showing only a limited criminal liability when she

denied to the district court any criminal liability at all. Furthermore,

any argument that a lack of foreseeability could be established by the

fact that more sales were attributed to her than those with which she

was personally involved would be without merit, as would be the

argument that insignificant variations in sales amounts could be a

basis for showing unforeseeability.

Grady's second allegation of prejudice is that she could have challenged a statement in the presentence report that she was the leader

of the conspiracy, which she contends may have influenced the sentencing outcome. We find this contention to be equally meritless.

Although the presentence report does characterize Grady as the "lead"

 9
person, it made no upward adjustment for her role in the offense. Furthermore, the district court, presented with an agreed upon guideline

range of 78 to 97 months, sentenced Grady to 80 months imprisonment -- only two months over the minimum guideline sentence --

and made no reference to a "lead" role to justify the sentence

imposed.

Accordingly, Grady has failed to show that her sentencing would

have been affected by challenges to the drug amounts attributed to her

or to the characterization of her role in the conspiracy. We conclude

that the technical Rule 32 violation did not affect her substantial

rights, and we decline to vacate Grady's sentence.

Grady next contends that she is entitled to resentencing because the

district court did not make a factual determination of the amount of

drugs foreseeable to her. In the absence of a timely objection by the

defendant, a district court need not conduct an independent factual

inquiry and may adopt factual findings contained within the presentence report. See United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th

Cir. 1993). At sentencing, Grady's trial counsel agreed that the presentence report accurately reflected the applicable offense level and

guideline range, and did not object to the district court's explicit

adoption of the presentence report's factual findings and guideline

application. Accordingly, the district court was not required to conduct an independent factual inquiry into the amount of drugs foreseeable to Grady and did not err in attributing to Grady the total quantity

of crack sold by the members of the conspiracy.

Grady's final contention is that she received ineffective assistance

of counsel because her trial counsel failed to object to the amount of

drugs attributed to her at sentencing. Claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel are generally not appropriate on direct appeal and should

be raised in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994),

unless the record conclusively shows that counsel did not provide

effective assistance. See United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th

Cir. 1997). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that it

does not conclusively show that counsel's representation fell below

an objective standard of reasonableness. See generally Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). Accordingly, Grady's claim

 10
of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly before this court

and must be dismissed.

IV.

Defendant Harris raises an independent challenge to his conviction,

contending that the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial because Grady's counsel, in closing argument, implied that

Grady would have testified against her son and co-defendant Harris

had she testified at trial. Harris' argues that the challenged comment

by Grady's attorney "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make

the resulting conviction a denial of due process." United States v.

Francisco, 35 F.3d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks

omitted). We disagree. While the comment was improper, the district

court immediately issued an appropriate curative instruction, warning

the jury that arguments of counsel were not evidence and that the jury

was not to speculate as to why Grady did not testify. We also reject

Harris' contention that the comment drew attention to the fact that

Harris did not testify. We find nothing in the comment which would

support this interpretation and, in any event, the district court also

instructed the jury that a defendant is not required to produce any evidence and that no inference whatsoever can be drawn from the fact

that a defendant does not testify. Accordingly, the district court did

not err in denying Harris' motion for a mistrial.

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions of Merritt,

Grady, and Harris.

AFFIRMED

 11