UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50127 Summary Calendar __________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEITH ADELL DANCER, also known as Keithadell Dancer, and JESSE WILFORD CLARK, JR, also known as Jessie Clark,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco (W-94-CR-2-1) ______________________________________________ December 20, 1995

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants, Keith Adell Dancer (Dancer) and Jesse Wilford

Clark, Jr. (Clark), appeal their convictions of the offense of

conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. violation of

(a)(1) and 846. After considering the

record evidence and arguments of counsel for each appellant, we

find no reversible error occurred in the district court proceedings

which would require reversal. We reject each appellant's claim of

error for the reasons set forth below.

1. Dancer's appeal.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting

the complained of out of court statement of James Williams (Patroy)

because the record evidence allows a finding that Patroy was a co-

conspirator of Dancer; the statement was made during the course of

the conspiracy; and, it was in the furtherance of the conspiracy.

Even were we to assume that the alleged conversation occurred at a

time that Patroy and Dancer were angry with each other, as

suggested by Dancer, such would not establish that Dancer was no

longer a part of the conspiracy. Moreover, even assuming the

complained of evidence was erroneously admitted, in light of the

other substantial and overwhelming evidence of Dancer's guilt we

would find the out of court statement complained of is not

reversible error as it did not have a substantial impact on the

verdict.

2. Clark's appeal.

The district court immediately instructed the jury to

disregard the objectionable testimony and under such circumstances

and in light of the entire record, the refusal to grant a mistrial

was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Limones,

(5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,

,

1562 (1994).

2 AFFIRMED.

3