### The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MELLOY, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 95-1254

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Lamarr Love, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 25, 1996 Filed: March 27, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
The government charged Lamarr Love with one count of distributin g cocaine, and two counts of distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a hig h school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 860(a). At trial, the government's evidence included the testimony of a confidential informant who w ore a body wire during three controlled purchases of cocaine fro m Lo ve. The jury found Love guilty as charged, and the district court 1 senten ced him under the career-offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, t o concurrent sentences of 270 months imprisonment and six years supervised release. On appeal, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Ander s v. Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Love has filed a pro s e supplemental brief and various motions. We grant Love's

### -2-

motion to submit a su pplemental issue, deny his motion for appointment of counsel, and affirm his convictions and sentences.
In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the district court erred in admitting into evidence audiotapes of two controlled drug transactions , because the tapes lacked an appropriate evidentiary foundation. As no suc h objection was raised contemporaneously with the tapes' admission at trial, we review the issue for plain error, and find none. See Fleming v. Harris , 39 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1994). To the extent Love challenges, in his pro se filings on appeal, the district court's a dmission of the tapes over a defense objection a s to audibility, we reject his argument. See United States v. Tangeman , 3 0 F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 532 (1994). We also reject counsel's argument that the court erred i n allowing the jury to view transcripts of the audiotapes. See United State s v. Britt on , 68 F.3d 262, 264 (8th Cir. 1995), pet. for cert. filed , 6 4 U.S.L.W. 3593 (Jan. 16, 1996) (No. 95-1337). Counsel's additional argumen t as to t he government's failure to obtain authorization and consent t o int ercept an oral communication was not raised below, and is meritless
. See United States v. Jones , 801 F.2d 304, 315 (8th Cir. 1986).
Counsel a lso argues that the district court erred in denying Love a new trial, based on the prosecutor's alleged misconduct in improperl y cross- examining Love. Upon reviewing the record, and considering th e stren gth of the case against Love, we conclude that no reversibl e prosecutorial misconduct occurred, see United States v. Jackson , 41 F.3d 1231, 1233 (8th Cir. 1994), and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusin g to grant a new trial, see United States v. Thomas , 58 F.3d 1318, 1321 (8th Cir. 1995). We also reject Love's pro se challeng e to the prosecutor's r emarks during closing argument, because Love did not obj ect at trial and has not shown plain error or the existence o f extraordinary circumstances. See Fleming , 39 F.3d at 908.

### -3- Finally, counsel argues that the district court erred in assessin g career-offender status because two of Love's pri or felony convictions were based on involuntary guilty pleas. As Love was represented by counse l during those prior plea proceedings, the district court properly refused to al low him to collaterally attack the prior convictions. See Unite d States v. Toledo , 70 F.3d 988, 989-90 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), pet. for cert. filed (Feb. 26, 1996) (No. 95-8026); United States v. Jones , 28 F.3d 69 , 70 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We conclude further that th e ineffective-assistanc e claims asserted by counsel in the Anders brief and by Love pro se are no t properly raised in this direct appeal. See United States v. Murdock , 928 F.2d 293, 298 (8th Cir. 1991).

Love's pro se argument that he suffered sentencing entrapment i s raised for the first time on appeal, and is meritless. See United States
v. Barth , 990 F.2d 422, 424-25 (8th Cir. 1993). We also reject Love' s argument that his sen tence is "excessive" under amended commentary to the career-offender Guide lines: the commentary dictated the offense level he received. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, comment. (n.2.); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(B). Upon our review of the record, we fi nd no other non-frivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.