UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HENRY ERNST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Bill Of Particulars cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1404] PER CURIAM:
Affirmed. See Local Rule 21.1, 2 See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S.Ct. 424, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966).
. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F. 2d 966.
. Appellant asserts as grounds for appeal : (1) the District Court’s refusal to suppress evidence obtained in an allegedly illegal search, (2) denial of defendant’s Motion for Discovery of a government witness’s statement, (3) denial of defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars, (4) failure to exclude hearsay testimony, (5) defective proof of chain of custody of evidence, (6) abuse of discretion in permitting a Secret Service Agent to testify as an expert in recognizing counterfeit currency, (7) insufficiency of the evidence, (8) defective indictment, and (9) the District Court’s refusal to give certain requested jury instructions, including an instruction on the law of entrapment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Santillanes v. United States Parole Comm'n & Bureau of Prisons, 754 F.2d 887 (10th Cir. 1985)
-
Reed v. Jones, 483 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
McEACHERN v. Henderson, 485 F.2d 694 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO, 430 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1966)