UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 98-4226

CHARLIE LEON WOODARD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
(CR-95-16)

Submitted: April 30, 1999

Decided: July 12, 1999

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Claire J. Rauscher, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Leon Woodard was convicted of one count of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1999). He appeals
his conviction and sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Woodard contends that: (1) the court improperly permitted the
Government to refresh the recollections of two witnesses; (2) the
court erred in declaring two witnesses hostile; (3) references to prior
testimony were improper because the prior testimony was not incon-
sistent with the witnesses' testimony at the second trial, and the tran-
script of the prior trial contained leading questions; (4) the court erred
by imposing a four-level enhancement to the offense level; and (5) the
Government violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 201(c)(2) (West Supp. 1999) by
offering leniency to witnesses.

We find that the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting wit-
nesses to review prior testimony. See United States v. Socony-Vacuum
Oil Co., 

, 233-34 (1940). To the extent there may have
been an error, it was harmless because reference to the prior testi-
mony was permitted after the witnesses were declared hostile. See
United States v. Baratta, 

, 222 (2d Cir. 1968). We also
find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declaring the two
witnesses hostile and permitting the Government to refer to their prior
testimony. See United States v. Bigham, 

, 946-47 (5th
Cir. 1987); United States v. Karnes, 

, 217 (4th Cir.
1976). Nor is a remand necessary for the purpose of directing the dis-
trict court to resolve factual disputes with regards to Woodard's
objection that the four-level enhancement was not justified. See
United States v. Singh, 

, 1192 (4th Cir. 1995). Finally,
we conclude that Woodard's claim under United States v. Singleton,

 (10th Cir. 1998), is meritless. Singleton has been
rejected by the Tenth Circuit in an en banc opinion, see United States
v. Singleton, 

 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc), and we find
the rationale of that opinion persuasive.

We affirm Woodard's conviction and sentence. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                     2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                   3