¶2*134Thomas M. Haas, Mobile, Ala. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
¶3Charles White-Spunner, U. S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
¶4Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
¶7Simon was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) by distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana. His sole defense was entrapment, and to rebut it the government offered the testimony of three law enforcement officers to show his predisposition to deal in narcotics.
¶8Each officer based his testimony on conversations with a confidential informant. One said an informer told him Simon had a reputation for dealing in drugs, and each of the other two testified an informer had said Simon was dealing in drugs. On appeal Simon claims this testimony was hearsay and a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. In this circuit, however, we have consistently held that “when entrapment is asserted as a defense, hearsay is admissible to show prior disposition to commit an offense charged in the indictment and that the government is not required to disclose the names of the informants.” United States v. Brooks, 5th Cir. 1973, 477 F.2d 453. Accord, Rocha v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 401 F.2d 529, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1103, 89 S.Ct. 905, 21 L.Ed.2d 796; Washington v. United States, 5th Cir. 1960, 275 F.2d 687. Therefore we affirm Simon’s conviction.
¶9Affirmed.