
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Calvin DUNLAP, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4042.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 22, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 13, 2003.
    Tracy Calvin Dunlap, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tracy Calvin Dunlap, Jr., was convicted of numerous fraud and related charges and sentenced to 324 months of imprisonment as a result of his participation in a scheme to defraud investors. Dunlap is proceeding pro se and raises four issues on appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

First, Dunlap has failed to show that his indictment was constructively amended in violation of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Floresca, 38 F.3d 706, 710 (4th Cir.1994). To the extent that Dunlap now objects to evidence of the “Tonda Mesa” account being admitted at trial, we do not find that the district court plainly erred in allowing its admission. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

Second, Dunlap alleges certain anomalies regarding the grand jury proceedings. Our review of the record does not disclose any prejudice to Dunlap. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256-57, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988). Neither does our review show constitutional error or prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 486 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, this claim fails.

Next, we do not find that the district court clearly abused its discretion by denying Dunlap’s motion for a bill of particulars. United States v. Jackson, 757 F.2d 1486, 1491 (4th Cir.1985). Finally, we find that Dunlap failed to establish grounds for the district judge to recuse himself from conducting the trial. Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dunlap’s motion to recuse. United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir.1998).

Accordingly, we affirm Dunlap’s convictions and sentence. 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.  