UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4214

MAXINE EDWARDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-96-363-A)

Submitted: March 10, 1998

Decided: March 26, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edward Blair Brown, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Kathleen M. Kahoe, Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Maxine Edwards was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine

with intent to distribute and various substantive counts of possession

of cocaine with intent to distribute. She appeals her convictions, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on

entrapment. We affirm.

In 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") established a

sting operation at the Lorton Reformatory to apprehend a group of

women, who were smuggling cocaine into the prison dressed as members of the Moorish Science Temple. An inmate informant, Kenneth

Bass-Bey, introduced the women to an undercover FBI agent posing

as a drug dealer. The agent gave the women cocaine and money. The

women then smuggled the drugs into Lorton and gave them to BassBey, who returned the drugs to the FBI.

Edwards was one of the women who smuggled drugs into Lorton.

In addition, Edwards was a "team leader" responsible for arranging

and transporting other women, and she also recruited at least one

other woman into the conspiracy. At trial, three other members of the

conspiracy testified that Edwards was a willing participant. In addition, videotapes were played for the jury showing Edwards obtaining

drugs from the undercover agent, introducing new participants to the

agent, instructing other women on how to wipe fingerprints off baggies of drugs, discussing transportation to the prison, and handing out

money to the other women.

Edwards was arrested in late September 1996 and at that time

denied any knowledge of the drug smuggling scheme. In early October, she approached the FBI to confess to her involvement in the

scheme. Edwards gave the FBI a written statement, in which she

admitted that she began her drug activities when she"accepted an

offer" from Dwayne Johnson, who was incarcerated at Lorton, to

meet Bass-Bey "so that [Bass-Bey] could explain . . . how he operated

a scheme to transport drugs." Edwards stated that she participated in

this scheme "in an attempt to establish a point where I could help

myself to progress in the world." Edwards further admitted that she

 2
met with Bass-Bey, met with the undercover dealer, and smuggled

cocaine into Lorton.

Edwards testified at her trial that she received several letters from

Johnson, asking her to assist in smuggling drugs into Lorton. In

response to this request, she went to Lorton to meet Bass-Bey. During

this meeting, Bass-Bey and Edwards hugged, kissed and discussed

transporting drugs into Lorton. Edwards testified that when she left

the meeting with Bass-Bey she was "terrified." When asked if BassBey had made any threats to her, Edwards replied that Bass-Bey had

made "favorable threats" that he could get things for her brother, who

was also in prison. She testified that she smuggled drugs into Lorton

because she was afraid for her personal safety and that of her brother.

During the charge conference, Edwards requested that the district

court instruct the jury on entrapment. The district court declined to do

so, ruling that the evidence was insufficient to support the requested

charge. The jury convicted Edwards of all counts.

Edwards claims that the district court erred in failing to instruct the

jury on entrapment. A defendant "is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable

jury could find entrapment." Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58,

62 (1988). "[A] valid entrapment defense has two related elements:

government inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition on

the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct." Id. at 63.

A defendant must produce sufficient evidence to support both elements. In order for the defendant to be entitled to the instruction, there

must be some evidence which, "if believed by a rational juror, would

suffice to create a reasonable doubt as to whether government actors

induced the defendant to perform a criminal act that he was not predisposed to commit." United States v. Rodriguez, 858 F.2d 809, 814

(1st Cir. 1988).*

Edwards claims that she only participated in the smuggling operation because she was afraid of Bass-Bey, who had repeatedly threat-

_________________________________________________________________

*Of course, once the defendant meets this entry-level burden, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no entrapment

occurred. See Rodriguez, 858 F.2d at 815 (collecting cases).

 3
ened her. However, the evidence is undisputed that Edwards first met

with Bass-Bey at the behest of Johnson, who was neither a government agent nor a cooperating inmate. Johnson made an offer that

Edwards accepted to "transport drugs." Edwards accepted Johnson's

offer, not because she was threatened by Bass-Bey whom she had not

yet met, but rather so that she "could help [her]self to progress in the

world." The evidence was clear that Edwards was a willing participant at least until her meeting with Bass-Bey. She therefore could not

have sustained the lack of predisposition element and was not entitled

to the instruction. See United States v. Romo , 914 F.2d 889, 894 (7th

Cir. 1990) (self-serving testimony of defendant insufficient to warrant

entrapment instruction where government presents credible evidence

of predisposition); see also Rodriguez, 858 F.2d at 815 (intrinsically

improbable evidence or vague, conclusory statements of threats are

not sufficient to require entrapment instruction).

We therefore affirm Edward's conviction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4