Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Don Lamar LOVE, also known as Pink, Appellant; United States of America, Appellee, v. Dewayne D. Phillips, also known as Boss, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2000-06-15
Citations: 219 F.3d 721
Docket Number: No. 99-3291, 99-3384
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Don Lamar LOVE, also known as Pink, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Dewayne D. Phillips, also known as Boss, Appellant.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 219
Pages: 721–733

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Don Lamar LOVE, also known as Pink, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Dewayne D. Phillips, also known as Boss, Appellant.
No. 99-3291, 99-3384.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2000.
Filed: June 15, 2000.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 28, 2000.
John Wesley Hall, Jr., Little Rock, AR, argued, for Appellant Love.
John F. Appelquist, Springfield, MO, argued, for Appellant Phillips.
Gregg R. Conrod, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kansas City, MO, argued, for Appel-lee.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.
Judge McMillian and Judge Bye would grant the petition.
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Don Lamar Love and Dewayne D. Phillips (collectively the appellants) appeal their drug-related convictions and sentences. We affirm.
The appellants raise several contentions related to their trial. We reject all of their arguments. First, the record contains substantial evidence on which the jury reasonably could have found Love guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Second, having considered Phillips's allegations of trial error related to the district court's voir dire about racial bias, the ad mission of drug evidence offered by the government, and the jurors' review of trial exhibits during deliberations, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court.
The appellants also raise arguments about their sentences. We reject these arguments as well. The district court's sentence-related factual findings about drug quantities have ample support in the record and none are clearly erroneous. Because the district court made no mistakes when imposing the appellants' sentences, we must affirm the sentences.
Having satisfied ourselves that the cases were well tried in the district court, that no error of law or fact appears, and that the appellants' appeals simply involve the application of settled principles of law to unique facts, we conclude the issues do not warrant a comprehensive opinion. We thus affirm the appellants' convictions and sentences without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.