THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Clarence E. Bamberg, Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-249
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 21, 2010
Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Clarence E. Bamberg appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana, second offense, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, second offense. Bamberg argues (1) the trial court erred in admitting drug evidence because the State was unable to establish a reliable chain of custody, and (2) the trial court erred by making improper comments during jury instructions. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting drug evidence: State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("[M]aking a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination. The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced.") (internal quotations omitted).
2. As to whether the trial court made improper comments during jury instructions: Rule 20(b), SCRCrimP (stating failure to object to the giving or failure to give a jury instruction shall constitute waiver of the objection); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 52, 476 S.E.2d 683, 688 (1996) (noting the failure to object to a charge as given, or to request an additional charge when given an opportunity to do so, constitutes a waiver of the right to complain on appeal).
PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.