Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin McCROREY, Jr., a/k/a Big C, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-05
Citations: 17 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 01-4198
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin McCROREY, Jr., a/k/a Big C, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin McCROREY, Jr., a/k/a Big C, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4198.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2001.
Decided Sept. 5, 2001.
I.S. Leevy Johnson, Johnson, Toal & Battiste, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellant.
Scott N. Schools, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appel-lee.-
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Calvin McCrorey, Jr., was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm his conviction.
McCrorey alleges that the district court erred by allowing the prosecution to enter into evidence the fact that some of its witnesses were testifying pursuant to plea agreements. We do not find that the district court abused its discretion by admitting this evidence. United States v. Henderson, 717 F.2d 135, 137-38 (4th Cir. 1983). Neither do we find that the Government improperly vouched for or bolstered the testimony of these witnesses. United States v. Sanchez, 118 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1997). Finally, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in sustaining the Government's objection to limit inquiry into witness Clifford Hoyles' pending forgery charges. United States v. Bostain, 59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir.1995) (stating standard of review). McCrorey does not contest the validity of his sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm McCrorey'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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.