¶1*684George F. Tasseff, Bloomington, Ill., for appellant.
¶2Patricia A. McGarry, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
¶3Before McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
¶5Jardee Carter was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after federal agents made a controlled delivery of an Express Mail package. He appeals challenging the admission into evidence of a drug courier profile.1 We affirm.
¶6I.
¶7United States postal inspectors monitor Express Mail packages for narcotics. On December 19, 1988, an inspector at Lambert International Airport in St. Louis noticed a package addressed to Loretta Perry at a St. Louis address. The package had a Los Angeles return address, a “source” area for narcotics. The inspector ran a computer check to see if other packages had been mailed from the same address. There were recent past mailings and the inspector subsequently determined that the return address was fictitious. A dog was called in to sniff the package and reacted positively to it. A search warrant was obtained for the package. Inside was cocaine and a label with the handwritten names of Jardee Carter and Loretta Petty. A tracking device was placed in the package. The package was delivered to Loretta Petty at her apartment building. Carter entered the building, passing the departing inspector. Shortly thereafter, Carter left the building and proceeded to drive away. He was followed and was arrested after throwing the package out of his car.
¶8II.
¶9At trial, the government’s witnesses described the “Narcotic Mail Profile Program” as summarized above. Carter contends that the admission of testimony regarding the government’s program was prejudicial.
¶10Drug courier profiles are investigative tools, not evidence of guilt. The admission of a profile into evidence is “inherently prejudicial” and can easily influence a jury into thinking that the defendant is guilty. United States v. Hernandez-Cuartas, 717 F.2d 552, 555 (11th Cir.1983). Drug courier profiles are not to be admitted as substantive evidence of guilt. Unit*685ed States v. Quigley, 890 F.2d 1019, 1022-24 (8th Cir.1989). In this case, it was not necessary to establish the validity of the airport search of the package in front of the jury.
¶11The description of the government’s program, however, was in this case harmless. There was overwhelming evidence of Carter’s guilt. The package was opened and contained cocaine, together with his name. He was observed picking up the package and later throwing it out of his car. The package was retrieved and contained cocaine.
¶12Accordingly, we affirm Carter’s conviction and sentence.