UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 96-4154

WILLIAM P. HASKINS, a/k/a K.C.,

a/k/a Julio,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield.

David A. Faber, District Judge.

(CR-95-72)

Submitted: June 23, 1998

Decided: July 10, 1998

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr,

Assistant United States Attorney, Philip J. Combs, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Alvarez, Clint R. Lawson and William P. Haskins were

charged with conspiracy and other drug offenses in the same multicount, multi-defendant indictment. Alvarez was convicted in a bench

trial of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute

crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and sentenced to 360 months

imprisonment. Lawson entered a guilty plea to one count of distributing crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994), and was sentenced to

a term of 84 months imprisonment. Haskins pled guilty to three

counts of distributing crack and one count of aiding and abetting the

distribution of crack and was sentenced to 420 months imprisonment.

Alvarez appealed his conviction and sentence. Lawson and Haskins

appealed their sentences. All three appeals were consolidated but

Haskins later moved to strike the brief previously filed on his behalf

by his appointed counsel and notified the court that he would proceed

pro se. This court construed Haskins' motion to include a motion to

relieve his counsel. By order, we relieved Haskins' counsel of his

obligation of representation and permitted Haskins to proceed pro se.

Consequently, we severed Haskins' case from those of Alvarez and

Lawson for the purpose of the appeal.* Cf. United States v. Jackson,

863 F.2d 1168, 1170 n.1 (4th Cir. 1989). Although Haskins has been

granted leave to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.

We therefore address the issue previously raised by appointed counsel

and affirm the sentence.

In late March or early April 1995 Alvarez met Jose Ortiz, a longtime friend, in the Bronx, New York. Ortiz told Alvarez he was selling crack in Beckley, West Virginia, and Alvarez decided to join him.

_________________________________________________________________

*The consolidated appeals of Alvarez and Lawson have been decided.

See United States v. Alvarez, No. 96-4070 (4th Cir. May 5, 1998)

(unpublished).

 2
Alvarez then traveled to West Virginia with conspirators William

Haskins and Ira Mason. Ortiz remained in New York because his

source was temporarily out of crack. Alvarez and Haskins began selling small amounts of locally-obtained crack while they waited for

Ortiz to return with a larger supply of crack.

On April 23, 1995, Ortiz arrived in Beckley with 250 grams of

crack and Alvarez was fronted 28 grams. Ortiz, Mason, and Haskins

each took a portion of the crack, and Haskins hid the rest in his aunt's

house, where he and Alvarez were living. On April 26, Ortiz and

Haskins met with state and federal undercover agents at a motel and

exchanged cash and crack for five firearms and a silencer. Ortiz and

Haskins were immediately arrested. While in jail, Haskins called

Alvarez and told him to sell the hidden crack. In September 1995,

Alvarez was arrested while in possession of 4.51 grams of crack.

Before Haskins entered his guilty plea, he wrote the following note

on two pieces of paper (the "Beat Case" letter), knocked at the window of the dayroom door in the area where Ortiz was confined, and

pushed the papers under the door.

 Beat Case

InTrapment Lawsuit

(1) Deperation of Charactor

(2) Unlawful Arrest I have Incompadent

(3) False Imprisonment lawyer 

I was Incohearent I didn't understand

I was lead to believe that I was going to do

life in prison if I didn't take the pleagreemt

(4) When Arrested they didn't let me make

a phone call to let family know what happened

I want all evidence they have

against me watch video never see cocain

I want a motion filed under the speedy

trial act to be released on bond

Tell lawyer it he doesn't want to help

you are going to get another one

 Say this in court & to lawyer

 3
In the room we never had any coke

they could have got it from anywhere

we were high at the time & we were

just buying guns at a cheap price

to sell for a higher one we were just

agree with them to get the guns

they asked us to buy the guns we didn't

asked them over to JC & Marks house

we asked them if they were cops and

they said no

 And we win the case

 One love partner

If Lawyer don't want to help you

 Call Lawyer Office & tell them

you want another lawyer or

 Mary S. Feinberg Mag. 5:95-M-0029

Ortiz later received two letters from a friend of his named Crystal.

The letters gave further advice and asked him not to testify against

Haskins. Ortiz testified at Haskins' sentencing hearing that he knew

the first letter came from Haskins and believed the later ones were

written at his direction. Haskins argued that the"Beat Case" letter was

merely notes he had made for himself on how to handle his own case

and that the government had failed to prove he instigated the other letters.

Relying primarily on the "Beat Case" letter, the district court found

that Haskins had obstructed justice by trying to influence the testimony and conduct of a codefendant. He received a 2-level adjustment. See USSG § 3C1.1, comment. (n.3). We have no difficulty in

finding that the court's conclusion was not clearly erroneous. The

"Beat Case" letter is quite evidently directed to another person, not to

Haskins himself. Even if we assume that Haskins wrote it for his own

use, he could have had only one purpose for passing it to Ortiz, and

that was to influence Ortiz's conduct and potential testimony. We

therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

AFFIRMED

 4