James Daniels v. United States

D.C. Circuit

James Daniels v. United States

281 F.2d 71, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4000

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided July 14, 1960·No. 15693·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted under a six-count indictment charging violation of the narcotics laws. He appeals.

Appellant urges, first, that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty on the charges which arose from two sales. We think the evidence is adequate to sustain the jury’s verdict.

He next urges that the jury was not properly instructed. It is to be noted that no exception was taken to the judge’s charge, and we see no reason to exercise our discretion under Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C.A.

Finally, appellant urges ineffective assistance of counsel. This point is totally without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted under a six-count indictment charging violation of the narcotics laws. He appeals.

Appellant urges, first, that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty on the charges which arose from two sales. We think the evidence is adequate to sustain the jury’s verdict.

He next urges that the jury was not properly instructed. It is to be noted that no exception was taken to the judge’s charge, and we see no reason to exercise our discretion under Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 U.S.C.A.

Finally, appellant urges ineffective assistance of counsel. This point is totally without merit.

Affirmed.

James Daniels v. United States, 281 F.2d 71, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4000 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

281 F.2d 71 (James Daniels v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related