Cite as U.S. v. Hudson, No. 97-4282 (4th Cir. 1997)

                           UNPUBLISHED

      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

                               v.

     BARRY HUDSON, a/k/a Pedro Morales, Defendant-Appellant.

                           No. 97-4282

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke, James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-96-9)

                  Submitted: November 18, 1997

                    Decided: December 5, 1997

     Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

     Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

                             COUNSEL

     Randy V. Cargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS, P.C.,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.

     Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P.
Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

                             OPINION

     PER CURIAM:

     Appellant Barry Hudson was convicted of aiding and abetting
the making of false statements to a federally licensed firearms
dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 2, 922(a)(6) (1994), and
conspiracy to acquire and transfer a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. section 371 (1994). On appeal he challenges that there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the
district court erred by refusing his request for a jury instruction
that his withdrawal from the conspiracy is a defense to the
conspiracy charge. We affirm.

     Appellant's conviction stems from his attempt to have Dennis
Staples purchase for him a handgun that he could not purchase
directly because he was a convicted felon and not a Virginia
resident. Appellant instigated a series of events in which he
offered Staples $50 to purchase a specific type of gun, repeatedly
drove Staples to different gun stores, and then provided Staples
with money to buy the gun while he waited in the car. In support of
Appellant's conviction the government is not required to produce
direct evidence that Appellant willfully participated in the false
representations Staples made when attempting to purchase the gun
for Appellant. See United States v. Hern, 926 F.2d 764, 767 (8th
Cir. 1991). Based on the evidence the government produced at trial,
a jury could have reasonably found that Appellant willfully
associated and participated in Staples' false representations. See
United States v. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d 973, 980 (5th Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, we find that there was sufficient evidence to support
Appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting the making of false
statements.

     We also reject Appellant's contention that there was
insufficient evidence establishing that the gun store in which
Staples made his false representations was a federally licensed
firearms dealer. Although the store's license had expired one month
prior to the incidents giving rise to Appellant's conviction, the
store owner had filed a timely application for renewal and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms explicitly granted the
store permission to continue operating under the old license. In
light of this evidence and because the store's license had never
been suspended or revoked, the jury could reasonably have found
that the store was a federally licensed firearms dealer.

     Appellant's final claim is that the district court erred in
refusing to instruct the jury that his withdrawal from the
conspiracy to acquire a firearm is a complete defense to the
conspiracy charge. We review a district court's decision not to
give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1107 (4th Cir. 1992). The
district court denied Appellant's jury instruction request because
there was ample evidence that Appellant committed overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy prior to showing any intent to
withdraw. Withdrawal from a conspiracy will not preclude a
conspiracy conviction if overt acts have been taken in furtherance
of the conspiracy prior to the withdrawal. See United States v.
Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915, 916-17 (10th Cir. 1986); United States v.
Wooten, 688 F.2d 941, 947 (4th Cir. 1982). An effective withdrawal
would only preclude liability for future crimes the remaining
co-conspirators might commit. See Gonzalez, 797 F.2d at 916-17.
Appellant committed numerous overt acts in furtherance of acquiring
a firearm prior to showing any intention to withdraw, and thus was
not entitled to an instruction that his withdrawal provides a
defense to the conspiracy charge. Hence, the district court
properly denied the requested instruction.

     Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgement finding
Appellant guilty of aiding and abetting the making of false
representations to a federally licensed firearms dealer and
conspiracy to acquire a firearm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

     AFFIRMED