UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 99-4295

KEITH MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 99-4328
SAMUEL AVANT HAMILTON, a/k/a
Samuel Brown, a/k/a Little Sam,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CR-97-943)

Submitted: September 29, 2000

Decided: January 10, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

John D. Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina; Mark C. Brandenburg,
BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON & HELMS, L.L.C.,
Charleston, South Carolina; Dale T. Cobb, Jr., BELK, COBB,
CHANDLER & GOLDSTEIN, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellants. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Miller W. Shealy,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Keith Martin and Samuel Avant Hamilton appeal from sentences
of 365 months and life, respectively, following their convictions for
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute
cocaine and crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and possession
with the intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994).
Hamilton also appeals from his life sentence for conspiracy to launder
money, 21 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West Supp. 2000), and Martin
appeals from his conviction and consecutive twelve month sentence
for summary criminal contempt. We affirm in part, vacate Martin's
contempt conviction, and remand this case for further proceedings.

Martin and Hamilton claim on appeal that they were entitled to
examine the specific sentences that the Government's cooperating
witnesses hoped to avoid and the specific benefits that they sought to
receive as a result of their substantial assistance to the Government;
they also contend that the Government's witnesses should not have
been permitted to testify in return for the potential reduction in their
sentences under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. This court has previously
rejected both claims in United States v. Cropp , 

, 429 (4th

                  2
Cir. 1997), and United States v. Richardson, 

, 196-97
(4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 

(2000).
Because a panel of this court cannot depart from Circuit precedent,
see United States v. Burgos, 

, 860 n.1 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc), we conclude that these claims lack merit. Thus, we affirm
Hamilton's money laundering conviction, as well as Hamilton's and
Martin's drug-related convictions.

Martin also challenges the validity of his summary criminal con-
tempt conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no certifica-
tion or other indication that the contumacious conduct occurred in the
actual presence of the judge. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). Accordingly,
we vacate Martin's contempt conviction and remand to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(b).
See Groppi v. Leslie, 

, 504 n.8 (1972); United States v.
Neal, 

, 997 (4th Cir. 1996).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED
IN PART, AND REMANDED

                  3