* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50805

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADORNA DAREESE DAVIDSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CR-79-ALL)

- - - - - - - - - - October 3, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Adorna Dareese Davidson has appealed her convictions for

conspiracy to possess with inte nt to distribute cocaine base and

for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. For reasons

discussed below, the convictions are AFFIRMED.

We reject Davidson’s contention that the indictment was

insufficient in failing to specify the quantity of cocaine base

allegedly involved in the offense and in fail ing to identify

Davidson’s alleged coconspirators. Appellant’s reliance on U nitedNo. 96-50805

-2-

States v. Fitzgerald

, 89 F.3d 218, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

117 S. Ct. 446 (1996) is misplaced, since that case turned on the

distinction between a misdemeanor and felony offense pertinent to

U.S.C. § 844(a) and 846, and we have held the amount of drugs need

not be stated in the indictment. U nited States v. Montes

, 976 F.2d

235, 242 (5th Cir. 1992). S ee also United States v. Flores

, 63

F.3d 1342, 1360 (5th Cir. 1995), c ert. denied

, 117 S. Ct. 87

(1996).

We review Davidson’s contention that her out-of-court

statement should have been excluded under F ED

. R. E VID

. 403 for plain

erro r. S ee United States v. Olano

, 507 U.S. 725 (1993); United

States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

We find no error, plain or otherwise.

Davidson contends that the evidence of guilt was

insufficient. Diana Moore’s testimony, alone, was sufficient to

support Davidson’s conviction. S ee United States v. PenaRodriguez

, 110 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert.

filed (June 19, 1997) (No. 96-9480).

Further, Davidson’s substantial rights were not affected

and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

admit the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant into

evidence. S ee United States v. Torres

, 114 F.3d 520, 526 (5th Cir.

1997).

Davidson contends that the Government violated the rule

in Batson v. Kentucky

, 476 U.S. 79 (198 6), by striking the loneNo. 96-50805

-3-

black venireperson. Because discriminatory intent is not inherent

in the prosecutor’s explanation for striking the venire person, see

United States v. Pofahl

, 990 F.2d 1456, 1466 (5th Cir. 1993),

Davidson’s Batson claim is without merit.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by

disqualifying Davidson’s attorney because of an actual conflict of

interest. W heat v. United States

, 486 U.S. 153, 160-64 (1988);

United States v. Sotelo

, 97 F.3d 782, 791 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

117 S. Ct. 620 (1996), and cert. denied

, 117 S. Ct. 1002, and cert.

denied , 117 S. Ct. 1324 (1997).

AFFIRMED

.