Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the Clerk to place the ease on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969,
Albert Kenneth Bankston, appellant, was convicted in the district court for violation of Sections 2113(a) and (d), Title 18, U.S.C. The jury found appellant *716 guilty of armеd robbery of the Citizens National Bank in Plain, Mississippi. 1 The evidence showed convincingly that the appellant was the person who took approximately $23,000.00 from the Plain Bank at gunpoint on September 11, 1968. After an adjudication of guilty as charged, the trial judge sentenced Bankston to twenty-five years confinement in the custody of the Attorney Genеral.
Reversal is urged upon two grounds requiring discussion: (1) that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to quash the jury venire when appellant was brought into the courtroom at the opening of his trial in the presence of the jury venire wearing handcuffs; and further (2) that the court erroneously admitted evidence obtained from a search of an apartment occupied by one Toni Gentry, appellant’s female traveling companion. We find thеse contentions without merit and affirm the judgment below.
I.
The appellant was brought into the courtroom while handcuffеd and went directly to the counsel table where the cuffs were removed. Appellant had the cuffs on in the presence of the jury ve-nire for approximately one minute. Counsel for appellant brought this to the attention of the court prior to the impaneling of the jury for his trial, and advised the court he wished to present a motion tо quash the panel. The court did not deal with the matter immediately, but proceeded with selection of the trial jury until a midmorning recess, when a hearing on the motion was held out of the presence of the venire. The court determined that appellant had not been prejudiced by the handcuffing and that trial before a new and uninfected рanel was not required by the circumstances.
The trial judge was familiar with the appellant’s background
2
and had instructеd the U. S. Marshal’s office to use whatever restraints were considered necessary in handling the prisoner and in transрorting him to and from the courtroom. Clearly this was a matter to be resolved by the trial judge in the exercise of his sound disсretion. Gregory v. United States, 8 Cir. 1966,
II.
The record indicates that appellant, while in the company of his female companion, Mrs. Gentry, was arrested on September 13, 1968, by special agents of the F.B.I., in a parking lot at the rear оf Mrs. Gentry’s apartment on Vespasion Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. At the time of the arrest, the F.B.I. agents found $3,430 on appellant’s person and $14,390 in an attache case he had placed on the sidewalk upon their apрroach. Thereafter, with Mrs. Gentry’s consent, the F.B.I. agents searched her apartment and found an empty leatherette case identified by bank employees as identical to one used by the robber.
Appellant contends that it was reversible error for the district court to admit, over objection, the leatherette case found in Mrs. Gеntry’s apartment. This contention fails for several reasons. Appellant argues that the leatherette cаse was not fully identified by government witnesses as the one used during the robbery. The witnesses were able only to say that it was similar. This objection we think went to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility. The witnesses in the bank of course had no oр *717 portunity to place an identifying symbol on the case they saw. No motion to suppress was made and no objection was offered on the ground that the case was the fruit of an unlawful search. Thus the legality of the search itself was not put in issue.
Assuming appellant had standing to object to the claimed unlawful search under Jeffers
3
, his total reliance on Chimel v. California, 1969,
Under decisions controlling pre
Chimel
the vаlidity of a search without warrant incident to a valid arrest depended upon whether the search was reasоnable in the “totality of the circumstances”. See United States v. Rabinowitz, 1960,
We hold further that even assuming that the search of the Gentry apartment was unreasonable under the broader “totality of the circumstances” test of Rabinowitz and Harris, suprа, the admission of the fruit (the leatherette case) of this search was harmless error, because of the presence of overwhelmingly sufficient other circumstantial evidence of appellant’s guilt. The finding of the leathеrette case was of small significance indeed compared to the finding of the nearly $18,000 on and directly adjаcent to Bankston’s person at the time of his arrest.
The remaining issues raised by the appellant do not merit discussion.
Affirmed.
Notes
. The Plain Citizens National Bank was a branch bank of the Citizens National Bank of Jackson, Mississippi, a national bank, whоse deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
. Appellant had attempted to escape after his arrest in New Orleans and later in Jackson, Mississippi, less than three weeks prior to thе trial. He had in fact escaped by kidnapping the sheriff and others at gunpoint.
. United States v. Jeffers, 1951,
. Chimel overruled Harris and Rabinowitz, infra, text, on their own facts, and held a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest must be confined to the person and area from within which the person might obtain either a weapon or something that could be used as evidence against him.
. Chimel was decided June 23, 1969. Bankston was tried January 20, 1969.