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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 distributing

cocaine, and two counts of distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a high

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 wore a body wire during three controlled purchases of cocaine from

Love. The jury found Love guilty as charged, and the district court1

sentenced him under the career-offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to

concurrent sentences of 270 months imprisonment and six years supervised

release. On appeal, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Love has filed a pro se

supplemental brief and various motions. We grant Love's
-2-

motion to submit a supplemental 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 such

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 admission of the tapes over

a defense objection as to audibility, we reject his argument. See United

States v. Tangeman, 30 F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

532 (1994). We also reject counsel's argument that the court erred in

allowing the jury to view transcripts of the audiotapes. See United States

v. Britton, 68 F.3d 262, 264 (8th Cir. 1995), pet. for cert. filed, 64

U.S.L.W. 3593 (Jan. 16, 1996) (No. 95-1337). Counsel's additional argument

as to the government's failure to obtain authorization and consent to

intercept an oral communication was not raised below, and is meritless.

See United States v. Jones, 801 F.2d 304, 315 (8th Cir. 1986).

Counsel also argues that the district court erred in denying Love a

new trial, based on the prosecutor's alleged misconduct in improperly

cross-examining Love. Upon reviewing the record, and considering the

strength of the case against Love, we conclude that no reversible

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 refusing 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 challenge

to the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument, because Love did not

object at trial and has not shown plain error or the existence of

extraordinary circumstances. See Fleming, 39 F.3d at 908.
-3-

Finally, counsel argues that the district court erred in assessing

career-offender status because two of Love's prior felony convictions were

based on involuntary guilty pleas. As Love was represented by counsel

during those prior plea proceedings, the district court properly refused

to allow him to collaterally attack the prior convictions. See United

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 the

ineffective-assistance claims asserted by counsel in the Anders brief and

by Love pro se are not 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 is

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 sentence is "excessive" under amended commentary to the

career-offender Guidelines: 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 find 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.