372 F.2d 80 (9th Cir. 1967), 20855, Ray v. United States

Docket Nº:20855.
Citation:372 F.2d 80
Party Name:Lawrence H. RAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:January 20, 1967
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 80

372 F.2d 80 (9th Cir. 1967)

Lawrence H. RAY, Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20855.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

January 20, 1967

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1967.

Page 81

Thomas J. Davis, Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.

William P. Copple, U.S. Atty., Jo Ann D. Diamos, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.

Before HAMLIN, JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge:

Following trial to a jury, appellant was convicted on all counts of an eight count indictment. Counts I, II, III and VII, charged violation of 8 U.S.C.§ 1324(a)(4). 1 Counts IV, V, VI, and VIII, charged violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2). 2

Page 82

The alien referred to in Counts I and IV is Antonio Valenzuela-Lopez; the alien referred to in Counts II and V is Celedonio Martinez-Dorame; the alien referred to in Counts III and VI is Carmen Chavez-Franco; and the alien referred to in Counts VII and VIII is Jose Romero-Siquero.

The judgment and commitment of the District Court, after reciting that appellant had been convicted by jury verdicts as charged in each of the eight counts, committed the appellant to the custody of the Attorney General, or his authorized representative, for 'imprisonment for a period of eighteen months.'

On this appeal the only errors specified in appellant's brief are the claimed error of the District Court in failing to grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on Counts I, II and III at the close of the government's case; and claimed error of the District Court in giving one instruction to which appellant objected, and refusing to give two instructions which appellant requested. Because of the factual situation which developed under Counts I through VI, and which was not present under Counts VII and VIII, the instructions were relevant only under Counts I through VI.

In his brief appellant seeks reversal only in respect to the first six counts.

No attack is made in appellant's brief with respect to his conviction on Counts VII and VIII. On oral argument counsel for appellant conceded that there were no infirmities or errors in appellant's conviction on Counts VII and VIII.

We have reviewed the record and are likewise convinced that the evidence introduced before the jury in the District Court abundantly supports appellant's...

To continue reading