UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CONNIE D. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 95-3191 Defendant-Appellee,

and

PAUL BOULEY; ROGER BURACKER, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-94-173-NN)

Argued: December 5, 1996

Decided: January 8, 1997

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jeffrey M. Jordan, PENINSULA LEGAL AID CENTER, INC., Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Lori Joan Dym, Legal Pol- icy, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Andrew German, Managing Counsel, Legal Policy, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, George M. Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Connie D. Jones brought this action against her former employer, the Postmaster General of the United States, and two individuals, alleging various acts of illegal employment discrimination and retalia- tion. Jones presently appeals from a judgment entered against her fol- lowing a trial of her claims; she asserts that the district court erred in refusing to permit her to introduce the testimony of two witnesses on the grounds that she had failed to timely name them in compliance with a district court order directing disclosure of all witnesses by a specified date prior to trial. We conclude, however, that because Jones failed to proffer the substance of the witnesses' proposed testi- mony, she may not prevail on appeal. See United States v. Clements,

(5th Cir. 1996) (holding alleged error in exclusion of testimony was not properly preserved because"`the substance of the evidence was [not] made known to the court by offer'" and was not "`apparent from the context within which questions were asked'") (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2)). In the absence of a proffer of their testimony, we are unable to conclude that Jones' substantial rights were impacted by the refusal of the district court to permit the testi- mony of the witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

2