United States v. Jose Demetrio Arteaga-Limones and Mike Lozano Cantu

INGRAHAM, Circuit Judge: Jose Demetrio Arteaga-Limones (Ar- teaga) and Mike (Cantu) Lozano Cantu appeal from their convictions of drug-re- lated offenses. Arteaga was convicted under 21 U.S.C. conspiracy § to im- port marijuana; 21 952(a), U.S.C. §§ 960(a)(1), illegal importation marijua- na; conspiracy U.S.C. pos- § marijuana sess distribute; with intent to 841(a)(1), and 21 possession U.S.C. § marijuana with intent to distribute. He received a sentence of years five impris- years onment and special parole five count, each to be served consecutively. Cantu was convicted of the two latter offenses and received a sentence of five years imprisonment years and five spe- parole count, cial on each to be served concurrently. Both defendants assert numerous claims of Arteaga’s error. ap- peal court; argued orally to the of Cantu was submitted on only. briefs

FACTS 1974, In May during the trial of Julio Castillo-de la Garza (Castillo) on charges involving the illegal importation of a 300-pound shipment hashish, of evidence developed that implicated Arteaga- Limones, Cantu and one Alvaro Moreno in the importation and distribution of pounds marijuana 350 between Janu- 1, ary 9, 1973 and October 1973. Castillo was convicted on the charges hashish and became the chief witness in the in- stant Arteaga-Limones trial of and Can- tu. The following account of the events preceding following and the importation Reich, Jay Antonio, Tex., Jake San marijuana is primarily drawn Jr., Austin, Tex., Houp, Kenneth E. Ar- from testimony. his Gonzalez, Rio, Tex., turo C. Del for de- fendants-appellants. orOn about January 30, 1973, Castillo and Arteaga Clark, travelled across Atty., John E. U. S. James W. border to Acuna, Ciudad Kerr, Jr., (the Mexico Antonio, Atty., Asst. U. S. San residence Castillo), and Tex., carried back Mervyn Hamburg, two Dept, U. S. sacks marijuana. They Justice, stored C., D. Washington, plaintiff- sacks at Arteaga’s Rio, home in Del Texas, appellee. and later transported them to the San Anto-

nio area and sold them to an unidenti- purchaser. fied No money changed hands at the time of delivery, but Castil- COLEMAN, Before CLARK and IN- lo later received several payments total- GRAHAM, Judges. ing Circuit approximately $60,000, which he

H87 with intent distribute marijuana then Arteaga. Castillo over turned noting that Cantu re- dealer, begin it. We and dis- Moreno, a narcotics met the vio- sentences for him. ceived concurrent marijuana for transporting cussed lations; proof if the be ade- accordingly, 1973,Arteaga and Castil- 5,May Around count, reversible either no quate as to home traveled Arteaga’s atmet lo Hirabayashi v. United present. error is bor- the Mexican near ranch a small 1375, States, 320 U.S. S.Ct. of Artea- two they observed der, where (1956); United States v. Ran- L.Ed. 1774 the direction from employees arrive ga’s som, 515 F.2d Ar- marijuana. with sacks Mexico the sacks stored Castillo teaga and Later, when Moreno house. Arteaga’s approach the evidence with We marijuana from Cas- buy some asked to appeal to view it on responsibility im- the recent tillo, him of Castillo told govern favorable light most a credit requested Moreno portation. ment, required by v. United Glasser subject to agreed, Castillo transaction. 86 L.Ed. 315 U.S. Arteaga agreed and approval. Arteaga’s Accordingly, we have no dif de- make the that Cantu implied ficulty finding sufficient evidence to morning, when Castillo livery. next conspiracy and substan support both in San restaurant in a motel met Cantu firmly charges. tive Castillo’s account part Marcos, Castillo Cantu told the existence of a a basis for establishes car. in his Moreno marijuana was himself, Arteaga and conspiracy between left Can- restaurant came required evidence is slight Only Moreno. reported and Arteaga arrived tu’s car. conspiracy to a once to link defendant a marijuana was the rest that conspiracy been estab the fact of has re- nearby. Moreno parked car another Lawson, v. 523 lished. United States in this and left to the turned restaurant 804, (5th 1975); Cir. United F.2d 807 with- passed two months After car also. McGann, 1104, v. 431 F.2d 1107 States Moreno, Cas- from payment word out denied, 919, 1970), cert. 401 Cir. U.S. More- York to see to New traveled tillo 904, (1971). 91 27 L.Ed.2d 821 We S.Ct. and returned $800 no. Castillo received find, a could reasonably believe that later a About month to Ciudad Acuna. testimony as from to Cantu’s in $11,500 received Arteaga and Castillo Castillo, provision with volvement his marijuana None Moreno. from hiding place marijuana a for the and his already en- recovered, had it since courier, delivery service that he par as by network distribution tered the ticipated conspiracy charged in the light. to came time Castillo’s account Count Three. United States v. San

chez, 388, (5th Cir.), 508 F.2d 392-93 denied, cert. 423 827, U.S. 96 45, S.Ct. CANTU (1975). 46 44 L.Ed.2d The latter activity relating error claims asserts Cantu allegedly involving transfer of mari evidence, suffi- sufficiency of Marcos, Texas, juana pro San also the indictment Four of ciency of Count vides a valid basis for finding that of- extraneous of an the admission and marijuana possessed Cantu with intent fense. charged distribute it as in Count Four. Sufficiency of the evidence. 1. sufficiency challenges

Cantu Sufficiency 2. of Count his conviction on Four support evidence Four, Both Arteaga indictment. asserting that Three and Can Counts urge tu hear Count Four of no “other than there was evidence indict ment, charging existence a con actual to establish the violation say” of 21 it, 841(a)(1), U.S.C. spiracy fatally § or Cantu’s connection with defective possession of in that allege of Cantu’s it failed to and no evidence location for 1188 They as no of the offense.1 more than

the commission a summary of the court’s support position language comparison their between the Miranda Miranda, F.2d and from United 494 Tomasetta situations. The construc denied, 783, (5th Cir.), cert. 419 tion suggested 788 U.S. by defendants would con 966, 228, (1974), 42 L.Ed.2d 181 flict 95 S.Ct. with the law of all circuits that specify pre have stating faced this issued. See “[f]ailure United Honneus, cise location of the offense is not fatal if States v. (1st 508 F.2d 566 Cir. alleged.” denied, the district is From this state cert. 948, 421 U.S. 95 S.Ct. 1677, an alternative rule 44 they ment infer (1975); L.Ed.2d 101 United alleged, Powell, where the district is not the fail States v. 498 F.2d (9th Cir.), 890 denied, cert. specify 866, ure to the location of the offense 419 121, U.S. 95 S.Ct. 42 is fatal to the (1974); indictment. We refuse to L.Ed.2d 103 Flores v. United States, interpretation. make this Miranda, inferential 338 F.2d 966 1964); 1 specifically Wright, C. this court noted Federal Practice & Procedure validity (1969).3 that the of an indictment under 125 It § would not advance the 7(c) policies Rule practical, is determined of the Federal Rules of Criminal technical, considerations. 494 F.2d at applicable Procedure to indictments. 788, citing Miller, 7(c), United States v. 491 See F.R.Crim.P. 638, (5th Cir.), denied, 649 cert. While the counts of an U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 186 indict ment must (1974). stand independently Miranda further held that for the purpose of being judged as sufficiency of the to sufficien indictment must be cy, they apart need not be read from tested under the standard enunciated in caption heading indictment, Hagner v. United 285 U.S. clearly which state that the action is be L.Ed. 861 It ing brought in the Western Texas, Del Rio Division. cited as District of support for the statement on which Defendants rely and Cantu right had the to be tried in the Tomasetta, district (1st States v. 429 F.2d 978 and division where the offense was specifically Tomasetta com repu mitted, right not the diates the be told proposition any single they would be tried there. averment See Carbo v. sufficiency determines the Unit ed 314 F.2d 718 indictment2 and states failure “[t]he denied, cert. 377 specify greater precision to with U.S. 84 the lo Where, cation of L.Ed.2d 498 alleged here, offense sure as no allegation a ly given not have variance rise to this between [reversal charges made, proof insufficiency] sufficient and no addi other [had] demonstrating tional facts circumstance averred.” Id. at 980. that the de [been] The fendant in any way statement disadvantaged Miranda was intended read, entirety: 1. Count Four in its analysis, question in the as the is whether conveys the indictment as a whole sufficient COUNT FOUR properly identify information to (21 conduct 841(a)(1)) U.S.C. § upon by grand jury preferring relied the May 16, 1973, That on or about the exact charge. grand jurors, date unknown to the Defend- 429 F.2d at 979. ants MONES, JOSE DEMETRIO ARTEAGA-LI- concluding that the indictment [In is insuf- MORENO, ALVARO MIKE LOZA- we stress NO-CANTU, that no one factor ficient] minative. is deter- Garza, Julio (the Castillo-de la said Julio being Castillo-de la Garza named Id. at 980. principal as a but herein) not as a defendant persons grand jurors and other to the un- Wright suggests that, 3.Professor in these cir- known, knowingly intentionally pos- did cumstances, particulars a bill of should have sess with approximately intent to distribute been made available upon to the defendants pounds marijuana, a Schedule I con- request. request Id. appears 246. No such trolled substance. in the record. repudiation appears 2. The twice: [A]rbitrary necessity, rules as to in the abstract, given place a averment have no

H89 taking refuse to MR. GONZALEZ: “We are light, to we brought been has this position each count Defendant was fact that in the find error my client. It repeat the divi- not tried was an did this indictment entirely separate hearing. They the crime was in which were sion and district together. I been committed. not tried And don’t think to have charged anything might have hap- extraneous of- Admissibility of an pened my client has bearing in evidence offered government fense. particular this case because it was a narcotics conviction of Cantu’s separate and distinct offense. general a scheme or intent and establish you THE me ask COURT: “Let design: forgotten this: I have because I’ve Castillo, May about “Q on or Mr. cases, good many tried a of these but 2nd, convicted of an you 1974 were together, Mr. Kerr? they were tried Federal law? in violation of offense Honor, “Your Mr. MR. KERR: Can- sir, pos- Yes, I was convicted “A pled guilty. tu to distribute with intent session and my THE COURT: “That was recol- I pres- And am of hash. pounds you merely lection. And are introduc- ently awaiting sentence. ing particular judgment this that I en- type is a of mari- “Q And hashish tered in this case as Government’s Ex- juana, isn’t it? show that he hibit Number did Yes, sir, it’s a substance of “A charged? plead guilty to the offense marijuana. Mike Lozano Cantu. ed with “A “Q ^[******] All In that was case was you right, in that who case? else was convict- convicted showing issue of intent which is an element eral scheme or tion MR. KERR: offense. similar separate marijuana I’m design “Your act which also which showing Honor, goes is related convic- I gen- am design to the same scheme or in this “Q right. Looking around All absolutely cor- ease. Mr. Gonzalez is per- see the today, courtroom do case, rect but it is that it is a different Mike Lozano son that know of as an identical offense. Cantu? Yes, sir. “A “Well, THE in order COURT: he is where “Q you describe Would in, get it have to establish that it is wear- and what he in the courtroom the Fifth is—while Circuit Court of ing? similar, I think it Appeals says almost means identical. believe it was wearing a over here. He’s “A He’s is a testified that hash form of mari- long hair and brown with yellow suit juana. right, that Mr. Is Castillo-de la shirt. and a brown Garza? Honor, at this “Your MR. KERR: “Yes, THE it is mari- WITNESS: into evidence Govern- I’ll offer time juana. One. ment’s Exhibit Number THE COURT: “And this was a any objec- right, “All THE COURT: marijuana conviction. If there tion, Mr. Gonzalez? doubt about that? Honor, we MR. “Your GONZALEZ: “Yes, MR. sir. that, GONZALEZ: ad- if the object to going are to that, sir, dition to this is an offense being it’s offered please, because Court place which took of 1973 October by the the stand taking of prior to the while the Defendants are on now Trial purpose no It serves Defendant. place in 1972. for an offense took in this case. whatsoever “You mean are THE COURT: “Well, you tak- are THE COURT: taking position plea now that conviction is ing position involving guilty charge mari- not admissible? juana is too remote? ’73 is very United States v. Fendley, 522 F.2d recent. (5th 1975). 185-86 Cir.

MR. GONZALEZ: “I am taking the ARTEAGA

position- that it is not admissible as original evidence. That it would be Arteaga asserts nine claims of error impeachment admissible for purposes. that are individually considered below. THE “Oh, COURT: no. I’ll over- 1. Sufficiency of the evi rule the objection. I’ll receive it into dence. The review, standard for irre evidence. Government’s Exhibit Num- spective of whether the evidence is di ber 1 will be received in evidence.” rect or circumstantial, is whether reason able minds could conclude that the evi The foundation laid for the intro dence is inconsistent with hypothesis duction of Cantu’s 1974 conviction estab accused’s innocence. United that, lished although it involved a differ Ragano, States v. 520 F.2d 1203 n. ent load drugs, it resulted from the (5th 1975). Cir. The evidence adduced same conspiracy for which Cantu onwas at trial clearly supports the jury’s ver trial in this case was closely connect dict of guilty. ed in time with the events alleged here. Goodwin, v. 492 F.2d 2. Jury argument. During the (5th 1152-53 Cir. 1974); 2 J. Wig government’s closing argument, more, Evidence at § 304 202-03 prosecutor stated: prior Thus the conviction of Cantu was “Ladies and Gentlemen, for to clearly admissible, pointed out find the Defendants not guilty, you government trial, at to show common are going to have to disbelieve Mr. design, Here, scheme or plan. evidence Castillo’s statements and testimony, was admitted on an incorrect theory to are going to to have believe establish criminal intent. United States the Government bring Miller, 500 F.2d 761-63 you evidence of that nature knowing But evidence was properly it subject was not being be- receivable theory on another specified by lieved and that his veracity and credi- government counsel for the to establish bility could not be believed. You are going to have to totally disregard all e a common schem or design. United States v. Yaughn, 493 F.2d 441 that Mr. Castillo has told you.” 1974). Defense counsel asked that Arteaga did not interject objection an the evidence be excluded. In this situa trial government’s argument. tion, we hold that the technical error Nevertheless, for the first time ap the trial court in apparently basing his peal, he argues that prosecutor’s re ruling on the wrong ground did not re marks improperly vouched for the credi prejudice sult in to Cantu and does not bility of its primary witness Julio Castil require reversal. McCormick, See C. Ev lo. Although we recognize that idence 52 at 117 (Cleary Ed.1972). § government’s arguments were improper Additionally, it is clear that Cantu and unprofessional,4 the remark did not failed to state a specific objection to the constitute plain error. Therefore, be admissibility of the 1974 conviction. cause defense counsel did not object at objection Cantu’s was too loosely trial, formu- error not preserved appellate lated and imprecise apprise the court review. E. g., Fogarty v. United of the legal grounds for his complaint, 201, 263 (5th F.2d 204 Cir.), denied, cert. n and thus did not preserve error. See 919, 360 U.S. 1437, 79 S.Ct. 3 L.Ed.2d 4. States, Lawn v. United 339, 355 U.S. 359 Cummings, v. 274, 468 (9th F.2d 278 Cir. 15, 311, 323, n. 78 S.Ct. 321, 2 L.Ed.2d 335 1972); United Handman, States v. 447 F.2d (1957); Hall v. United 419 F.2d 582 (7th 1971); ABA, 853 Cir. Code of Professional (5th 1969); Cir. Coppola, United States v. 479 Responsibility DR 7-106(C)(3-4), EC 7-13. 1153, 1973); 1163 United States my all friends. Since agents, they are Furthermore, trial City, I was from Mexico got I back admonitions repeated court’s Manager as the Alpes in Las working can during argument nothing said that everybody, you and I met over there 357, 365, (R. as evidence considered be 373, 374, know. any prejudice 375, 379) dispelled prose arisen from might which have “That what he COURT: isn’t THE See, United closing argument. testify cutor’s under oath you. you asked Did 112, 124-25 Davis, 487 F.2d v. Jury States which a verdict in the trial in denied, 415 U.S. 3rd, 1974, cert. (5th Cir. May on was returned (1974); L.Ed.2d 94 S.Ct. working as an under- you that were Corbett, 518 F.2d United States and the Agent for the Mexican cover Government? sure, you “I’m not THE WITNESS: credibility of on Instructions if I it or not. know. I’m not sure said During cross-ex- witness. government work with But I didn’t them. he that admitted Julio Castillo amination “to earlier trial right, at an “All he admits THE COURT: himself perjured charge”: with He doesn’t he work them. out of didn’t get was, but testimony what his remember you that time “Q And at [when words, not true? in that was other Rio, he in Del being Texas] tried were now ‘Okay, “Right. I did not question: WITNESS: you asked THE oath on March testify under work for them. you did Antonio?’ 1974 in San is Reich:) Then if that “Q (By Mr. record, you then were not your Yes. within “A then, that correct? is telling the truth ques- to that answer “Q your And follow- doing And I was I what?’ “A I knew was ‘did No. tion in testify you wrong. doing ‘Did wrong. I was ing question 4th?’ March Antonio in San Court that in record “Q But if it’s I ‘Yes. that was answer your And working you that were you testified dope or with never deal I said here Agents and the for the federales correct, sir? Is nothing.’ States, Drug Enforce- in the United lying were you then Yes, Agents, ment “A sir.” that I am—I ing the truth cause time. did, “A “Q At that “A ^[******] you know. I was Well, No, truth, everybody. sir, I said have trying to is that correct? time I was Now repented you were not I’m hid. lying at in telling the for Court But now what I tell- be- then? remember. lying? are don’t “A “A Well “Q “A “Q telling the truth know Now I’ll ask Now Yes, sir.” maybe. I’m if you I was telling are whether or telling now lying. don’t the truth? truth. know. are I don’t you I jury, in court The trial instructed “Q Sir? part, as follows: pertinent time. at that lying “A I was exclusive are indeed the “You “Q then, lying You were sir? credibility, and credi- judges Yes.” “A synonomous it bility means an undercover all of the May 1973] “A ^[******] Well, I said Special Court, agent Agents, [that know, I worked the DEA all of because narc peared of each witness testimony and the believability before weight to be you.” given witnesses who ap- 1192 judges of the contends that the exclusive trial

“Now as court’s failure believability jury to caution the on weight or the credibility given be testimony must the tes- an witnesses, you consider admitted perjurer ap- witnesses who constituted timony all the reversible error. Nevertheless, Arteaga connec- peared requested in the case. this neither a tion, all you disregard any charge testimony or the perjurer can of a objected nor part testimony of a wit- to the trial given the court’s failure accept portion include such ness and can an you instruction. testimony which of the witnesses Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Crimi- can and should feel nal provides Procedure party that “[n]o reject or believe, any all you can may assign as error charge or omission therefrom unless he portion of the of the testi- part of remainder the plausible not feel is mony which objects thereto before the retires to belief. your worthy verdict, stating distinctly consider its with offense. sion or not Garza, dence of an accomplice and with common intent “Now, there has also ^[*] become case, another s{: witness Now, that Mr. Castillo-de accomplice testimony incompetent planning person is one who ^[*] is, an in this accomplice :}: in the commis- of a criminal as witness case. participates voluntarily been ^[*] Now, does 496 evi- sfs in (5th la provide the trial court error can then be Federal Practice ations. charge before the jury begins its deliber- correct any error or grounds matter States v. nn. 47-50 Cir. If prompt objection made, to which 1974). of his Rodriguez, The purpose of this is to objection.” & Procedure §§ corrected. he 498 an objects omission opportunity F.2d is See United Wright, and the in 307 participation because the al- Because Arteaga failed to re Quite leged charged. quest act criminal an instruction concerning the cred contrary, testimony of an ibility of Castillo’s testimony, proper by if believed accomplice alone foundation was not laid to obtain a re Jury may and of suffi- be sufficient view of this alleged error. Franano v. cient to sustain verdict of weight States, United (8th F.2d Cir. guilty any given as to Defendant denied, cert. 373 U.S. 83 S.Ct. though even not corroborated or (1963); 10 L.Ed.2d 694 Mims v. supported by testimony other or oth- However, Jury 1958); er evidence. United States v. Muncy, 526 F.2d keep should in mind that the testi- 1261

mony alleged accomplice an process Due and a “witness’ failure examined, closely should be received of memory.” The indictment charged weighed with caution that the offenses occurred “on or about” great care. specified certain days, “the exact date hand,' the Jury “On the other if unknown to the grand jurors.” From testimony believes an accom- outset the primary government wit- plice beyond to be true a reasonable ness acknowledged that he was unable to doubt, testimony is to recall sufficient the exact during dates which the though drug convict a Defendant even it offenses occurred: Jury ed upon es testimony testimony should corroborated unsupported, not convict a or other however, evidence. other uncorroborat- of an accom- defendant witness- Mexico. in narcotics in “A About a ^[*] looking ^[*] to delve connection for a ^[*] year-and-a-half ^{[*] [*]} ago I ^[*] plice unsup- it believes the unless I knew a man dealing “A that was ported beyond a reasona- testimony to him if he narcotics. talked ble somebody doubt.” introduce me with could

H93 that would that me more, that Mexico. from was no. That ruary, club, told if I could more. He ed with him. date. But working back in about in the Cantu lo— “A [Mr. “Q “A The THE COURT: “Q talking. he wasn’t ^[******] Holiday Inn going me yes, he Laredo, All All morning. will deliver I don’t was His help him was he was right. right. to And deal Villarreal Arteaga] said they both told And next going because name dealing introduce me more, a month. about Moreno and in narcotics. remember Mexico, I told me that around day, Actually, Mr. Castil- out. “May was to meet January or Villarreal in narcotics smuggling. introduced him, you May the came So narcotics Alvaro marijuana 10:00 Mike the 16th Tamaulipas, he will he told the to me start- me. into He Lozano a man o’clock More- know, is not exact 16th. Feb- told any any my me He me He be lished the The the since precision elements because ed 1970). where occurred ent to counsel prejudiced charged. not failure sive cross-examination and Cantu criminal ability 166-70, actly, you date. prove return government A Well support statute upon evidence, the exact that near the to recall On took his defense 178-84, was not the exact on the episodes memory. Counsel Nevertheless, the record of by the the appeal Arteaga’s subjected know, if it was the full no, showing the offenses however, limitations; place dates offenses, to 189-90).5 I don’t advantage of Castillo’s dates fatal. indictment prove dates of government’s Arteaga claims (R. of alibi exact dates where were contention, Castillo concerning his that alleged, 136-46, occurred Russell the the dates remember clearly not was the offenses the offenses accordingly, he was inability of essential Arteaga v. Unit- depend he was 161— failure for before within estab- exten exact that does ex- his in no been? that have would year what testimony from presented “1973.” THE WITNESS: firm a Mexican law members three Guadalajara he conferred we with whom right, Kerr): All Q (By Mr. closing 20, 1973. In date, May May 1 to from exact that’s the that don’t know ina- Castillo’s stressed counsel argument we? do 5th, yes. May following excerpt A 5. The is a brief from the lengthy May Q to recall 5th? 6th? attack on Castillo’s failure Yeah, exact relevant to the A those dates. dates criminal transac- about Q you say tions: Would remember May— date because Castillo, Q alleged Mr. in the Now it’s days ten Alvaro A It was about before indictment, talking and we are about Count visited me in Macarena. indictment, May Two that on or about days Q About ten before? 5, 1973, the exact date unknown A Yes. Jurors, Grand in the District of Western you— Q date that Alvaro visited Texas, Arteaga- the Defendant Joe Demetrio days, days eight know. A Six don’t Limones and Julio Castillo-de la Garza . it It about week. was says nothing about Mr. Cantu? say Q Alvaro The date Right. A was on visited at the Macarena Moreno May Q marijuana it on that date Was 1973? brought across the river? A No. Q you say? A date did Which May 1973? And 5th, Q May day before went A Alvaro was one we sure, A I’m not but it about those there, you there. He was San Marcos.—In sure, pretty dates. but it was I’m about know. those dates. Well, 1st, Q you say May May 2nd, 3rd, May May 4th? dates, links Cantu arguing recall bility specific the “distribution” portion. memory sup- Finally, that the witness’ failure locales were differ- ent. that Castillo’s Castillo’s ported alleged their contention account that the importation area; transactions was place account of the criminal took in the Del Rio leniency the designed there, a fabrication to secure distribution began but the ultimate sentencing procedure. consumers marijuana at the future were in New York. Yet story Castillo’s jury on mat- The court instructed portray does not regular “Del Rio con- innocence, presumption ters of nection” in which a New op- York-based doubt, burden reasonable proof and regularly eration Castillo, dealt with Ar- alibi, suspect the defense of and the na- teaga Cantu, and but largely fortui- accomplice testimony. ture of Addition- tous consummation of a pre- transaction ally, placing the issue of the date of of- viously contemplated only in barest out- proper perspective, fense in its the court line. Clearly Moreno was the intended stated: customer, but it equally is clear that oth- “Now, you will note that the Indict- er arrangements could and would have ment charges that the offense or the been made had Moreno’s hoped-for pur- complaints charges or the were com- chase not materialized. Thus two distin- mitted on or a certain date. It about guishable conspiracies may charged, be necessary proof that the not estab- prosecuted punished and when lish certainty the exact dates of so chooses interpret the evidence. See alleged offense. It is sufficient if American Tobacco Co. v. beyond the evidence shows a reasona- U.S. 90 L.Ed. 1575 ble doubt that the offense or incident on a date reasonably committed approximating near or the date al- 6. Destruction of

leged.” presump tion of Arteaga complains innocence. jury, The exercising its responsibility as the trial him court denied a fair judge the sole of facts credibility, trial by interjecting references to his in concluded that Castillo’s account was be- During carceration. direct examination notwithstanding lievable his inability to Rios, defense witness Richard chief remember the exact dates of the crimi- jailer at the Jail, Val Verde County Ar nal enterprise. teaga’s counsel elicited the following tes light of the trial court’s careful ad- timony: monitions defense vigorous counsel’s Q How long have you been Chief cross-examination of government Jailer in the Val County Verde Jail? witness, we conclude that Arteaga was A A year. little prejudiced by over Castillo’s failure of memory. Appellant’s claim is without Q Are the custodian of records merit. over there and have access to the records? jeopardy: Double one con Yes, A spiracy sir. Arteaga or two? contends that the evidence here shows one con Q I’ll ask as a result my spiracy, rather two separately than iden request you bring did over a record of ones, trial, tifiable and that his convic Jose Arteaga? Demetrio tion and consecutive sentencing on all Yes, A sir. counts violates the Jeopardy Double Q Do have you? that with clause of the Fifth Amendment im Yes, A sir. posing multiple punishments Q you please Would refer to that. same offense. We find no merit in this Is this the official record as to when claim. objects The of the two conspira Mr. Jose Demetrio entered cies were different (importation and dis the Val County Verde Jail? tribution). persons involved were different; for example, Yes, sir, A evidence it is.

H95 think I don’t he’s THE COURT: recite the you please Q Would there, over is he? prisoner Federal date? Why important? is this 8-23-74. A been County Jail all of indictment was or is this came A Q (By Mr. A This is when Q Is this the record as ^[*] County Jail. confined within Yes, sir. in to the ^[*] the record ^[*] Reich); County Jail? returned this time? he first ^[*] the Val when Now, against him to when Sí! came in to he first has he Verde ^[*] an the Jail and also as he has been on Castillo-de Garza Jail on through show how warrant was Charge. THE COURT: MR. REICH: MR. THE COURT: REICH: from the date long la State issued out on Well, No, charge Well, I’m sure this is You to when Mr. Julio State man has been entered in mean how he first Jail, straight just charges? the Federal when the the Jail. want to got long in Jose—Mr. have Jail son as far as otherwise from the date that entered the he is wasn’t there before ter of records A Q Q (By Mr. ^[*] all of the records Well, charged with? No, sir, any fact, you will find ^[*] Jose has time for Jail on this offense which you are certain if being he hasn’t. Reich): ^[*] you any let out on bond or will look then? not been out of ^[*] July particular rea- Now, of when Mr. ^[*] As a mat- that he he first do st* your you finement failed to served self. References 1974), cert. interesting, Mr. it? relevant? Julio Castillo-de and we MR. REICH: Additionally, because object at were invited Cochran, 499 F.2d 380 gowill 42 L.Ed.2d appellate denied, What is the Arteaga’s pre-trial into We will trial, la Garza. Reich, review. See United 419 U.S. by appellant error is point but materiality of just skip that why is it 1124, (5th Cir. Arteaga not to Mr. him con pre of a similar nature was elic- Evidence Honor, Mr. KERR: Your Reich MR. government’s direct ex- during ited impeaching his own witness. amination of Julio Castillo: I believe are. THE COURT: Castillo, Q on December Mr. just I want to find his MR. REICH: have a conversation with 1974 did all, records is Your Honor. The record Arteaga? Mr. speak for itself. should what, sir? A December the Well, 18th, I think Q THE COURT: 1974. Just this last month. Kerr, so. Mr. is there doubt about Yes, A sir. this? con- Q right. All Where was that versation? Honor, MR. KERR: Your I don’t jail. jail know because he’s in A under a charge. Federal suggesting He is Q right, All where? this witness that Mr. has been Del Rio Coun- Right A in the here July August in Jail since in connec- ty Jail. with the charge. tion Federal He is a else Q anyone was right, All prisoner. today State He is in Court present during conversation? on the basis of issued to a writ Alfredo the A He was alone and prisoner He is and he Sheriff. a State Jailer was outside. Custody is not in Federal and has not Arteaga or made objection No custody Federal since he was been in Therefore, objectionable Cantu. placed jail. doesn’t intend to take stand. And at most cumulative of statement brought up, of if in the event this is before placed evidence other to him. course it will be detrimental States v. objection. without McKinley, 493 your objection, Make THE COURT: give I will the usual and standard Jury. It can Ar- instruction to the be conviction. prior of a 7. Evidence I purposes done for the limited have the trial court erro- teaga complains question stated here. There is no of a 1961 con- evidence admitted neously marijuana.”6 give you about it. I’ll the cases. “smuggling viction for the latest case. following testi- Fonseca is The record reflects Arteaga’s claim: relating to mony too, MR. I can find cases REICH: Your Honor. Bench) (At the THE COURT: In the cases decided has shown Mr. Kerr MR. REICH: Orleans, by my overseers New which he in- exhibits couple of me a give have to the instruction. When wit- through this to introduce tends objection, make an I will have to taken has not This witness ness. limit it. cannot be conviction prior A stand. told the law. ing to prior misconduct used THE COURT: stand, not to consider against his record. versus Here is the him. Robert Jury or my I If he does prior criminal ac- anything pertain- happen to case, the United Fonseca. have not take know ‘Only be trio occasion to meet an individual who has been identified to A Q ‡ (In Arteaga? And in Yes, sir, sfc presence I knew him. if! you did ^[*] as Jose Deme- you :}; jury) have sje an involving Q a connection right, looking All around the tivity, whether today, introduced for the that indi- not, only can be courtroom do see showing intent or vidual? purpose limitated knowledge.’ He is seated at counsel table di- A Honor, it can also KERR: Your MR. at the you on the corner rectly behind show— the table. back of asserting ‘Proof a THE COURT: Honor, may MR. KERR: Your necessary to establish similar offense the Defendant has been record reflect proved must intent, offense the other identified. elements of the the essential exclude competent Yes, evi- charged by THE the record will offense COURT: dence.’ reflect the has identified the witness Defendant. case, Now, next Unit- right. my

All my also in v. Sanchez ed States MR. May KERR: approach I holding. any ‘It sustains Court. witness, Your Honor? guilty knowl- intent or prove order and testi- Yes, offered you may. other offenses THE edge, COURT: must be similar.’ fied Q Kerr): Killman, (By Mr. Mr. to show This is offered have MR. KERR: handled to what’s been They went offense. marked as is an identical Government’s Exhibit it by was affirmed and it Robinson Number 3. It lists the names of three up individuals, whom is Jose Dem- Circuit. one of Fifth Arteaga. etrio is that this fact The REICH: MR. stand and A Yes sir. taken hasn’t

man quired conspiracy for under 21 was obtained conviction conviction under The 1961 present 176a, repealed. 952(a), elements §§ U.S.C. 963 and since § .The U.S.C. charged very judice. to those re- in similar Count One of the are case sub 1961 offense offense; (2) prior similar not too your May please it REICH: MR. time; (3) remote in in which intent is a wish to offer Honor, we at this time element; (4) proof material conviction or any prior objection to our which substantially by is needed do with other has to anything that government to the extent that material this matter before than matter other prejudice to the defendant is out at this time. the Court Urdiales, weighed. United States Now, right. All THE COURT: alleged of- the date of what was prereq- In this case the first and third fense? uisites have been satisfied. The convic- KERR: 1961. MR. by way tions were introduced of docu- right, what was THE All COURT: mentary evidence from court records and charged? the offense testimony verified govern- oral from marijuana. Smuggling MR. KERR: Killman, ment D. witness William for- there a convic- THE Was COURT: agent mer customs Furthermore, stationed in Del Rio. tion? is clear from the lan- it Yes, guage Honor. intent is a MR. KERR: Your statutes in this case. The use material element right, All that’s an THE COURT: conviction, year old Arteaga’s twelve Members of identical offense. however, questions. raises serious prior consider for Jury, in order crime, prior convictions of this De- while other similar elemen or fendant, tally nearly Arteaga, charges for the same identical to the Mr. case, was committed type years of offense twelve type or similar charged, you activity charged before the presently to be crimi which he position limited nal here. We adhere to our it for the may consider Martin, knowledge in- United States v. showing or San 505 F.2d purpose of 1974): 922-23 purpose. You tent and for no other the instructed that the fact are The not, test for remoteness need an of- may have committed accused cannot, and simple indeed be a rule of any at some time is not evidence fense thumb solely based on the number of at a later proof whatsoever that years elapsed that have between the Arteaga committed the al- date Mr. prior crime present and the offense offenses, any, if leged offense or charged. test ... is The better case, this charged particular in this whether prior the crime is similar in indictment, though even particular and in its material elements to nature similar or like of a both are offenses clearly probative have value with re- nature. spect to the intent of the accused at charged. the time of the offense beyond a Jury If the should find the other evi- doubt from reasonable case, the facts of this we Under conclude the accused did dence in the case that Arteaga’s that evidence of 1961 convic- charged in this indict- the act or acts possess probative tion was too remote to evi- ment, Jury may consider then the value. offense of a prior or similar dence of a Also, the fourth element—the need for determining in the state like nature against the proof weighed preju- the the accused or intent with which mind dice to the defendant —was not satisfied charged in this In- did the act or acts in the instant case. In United States v. dictment, no any, pur- if and for other Miller, 500 F.2d 751 this It is limited to that. pose. court wrote: exception, Note our MR. REICH: the if we were to assume Even Honor, ruling Your to the probative had some prior conviction Court. case, govern- the present in the value admitting any evi actu- propriety The little to show has done ment to show intent in view of prior dence of convictions evidence for that al need showing four Terry factors: is established evidence. Lee other available convincing evidence (1) plain, Smith, co-conspirator, clear and testi- alleged claim. appellant’s cludes our review of helped weld that McDuffie fied Fendley objected defense counsel the mash for fer helped mix pots, still mentation, the admission of business records be- for work at the paid Smith cause, things, proffered among other condenser, a still still, furnished a and general rule evidence violated shorts, plastic and contain cap, wheat against The court held that the hearsay. carried to the Ma to be ers to Smith objection inadequate preserve was er- believed that con area. If ror: actually performed these McDuffie acts, appears loosely It to us that this for- would infer from

they logically imprecise objection mulated and possessed req that he that conduct (1) most comes to this: that the docu- intent. Fallen v. uisite criminal hearsay; (2) ment was the wit- 5th Cir. in- denied, laying ness the foundation for its 946, 948, cert. U.S. other than the troduction was someone 213, 100 L.Ed. 808. preparer; (3) that witness and present- situation An almost identical laying the foundation was unable to alleged The co- ed in the instant case. accuracy personally attest gave compendious conspirator Castillo figures contained in the document. operation, in- smuggling account of the objection There no on the was dates, par- places, cluding approximate grounds permitted which would have operation, in details of the ticipants and required the trial court to have that a way the witness much the same Smith fuller foundation be laid for the ad- linchpin of did in' Miller. The print- mission of the exhibit —that against Arteaga case government’s kept regular out was made and in the testimony, without Cantu Castillo’s business, regular course of business mar- which there is no evidence upon by and relied purposes busi- ijuana smuggled was ever at all. ness, finally that it was not “mere As was the Miller, case in it is hearsay accumulations or unin- highly unlikely that the jury would opinion.” formed United States v. choose to believe the principal witness’ Miller, supra, 500 F.2d at 754. remains ger of convicting defendants for their evil to whole account. challenge performed unknowingly or unintention ally. Arteaga did not limit his gal activity but find that the acts were traband or testimony as to the existence of the con the mens character instead of their great. rea; physical Where, In rather, such facts of the ille he attacked the cases, here, evil acts the dan the evi the Business Records tial. an met the ant’s new objection ^[******] hearsay, grounds as a objection While, obviously, grounds defendant now on admissibility requirements as to whether the exhibit asserted are basis for objecting itself clearly Act. the document appeal fails to state the defend- insubstan- raises of to the admissibility dence is not reasonably Exhibit 9—108. susceptible of the In our view the interpretation that defendant is foreclos- alleged acts to making ed from objections constitute the crime these were innocently per time, this formed as he failed to comply and no with defense is presented the requirements 51, which may Rule properly be Federal by rebutted Procedure, Rules of introduction Criminal prior that he conviction, the intent make “known to the exception court the to the rule against [trial] ad action which he desires the mitting prior court to convictions is not available objection take or his to the to the action prosecution. See United States v. Miller, the court grounds and the supra; Dryden, United v. States therefor.” 1175, (5th Clearly 423 if the Cir.), 1178 defendant fails object cert. de to nied, 950, 1869, evidence, objection 398 90 admission of U.S. 26 waived, (1970); normally L.Ed.2d 290 is United States v. United States v. Klein, 547, (2d Maddox, 1965). (5th 340 F.2d 492 Cir. F.2d 104 1974) Cir. Nevertheless, United v. Fendley, States unless the admission of such evidence (5th 522 F.2d 185-86 Cir. such clear error pre- that it affects sub- Q right, All rights. stantial Davis, United v. and did States he any make (5th 1974); statement 496 F.2d concerning Cir. his knowledge as to v. where Sykes 373 F.2d 607 to smuggle marijuana? 1966). Here, (5th although A Yes, sir. He said that he knew objected general defendant terms every crossing point on the Texas grounds on three of hearsay au- Mexican Border. thorship accuracy, he failed to ob- ****** ject with that degree reasonable (Cross by examination counsel for Ar- - specificity adequate- which would have teaga) apprised ly the trial court the true Q All right. Now Mr. Cerny, you objection basis his fact he —if did recall the 27th. You stated noth- object prop- wished to the lack of a ing 16th, on the you are positive er under foundation business that? records statute. United v. A Counselor, on the 16th day of Bryant, 480 F.2d (2d Cir. May 1974in my Rio, office in Del Tex- 1973). as, 209 East Losoya, between the 522 F.2d 185-86. hours of 1:15 P.M. P.M., and 2:00 Mr. Arteaga Likewise, told me during in Arteaga, appellant’s course of ob- jection conversation loosely present “too formulated and he had smuggled imprecise” marijuana apprise court trial he knew legal grounds every crossing point for his complaint. Be- on the cause Texas-Mexican Arteaga Border. And did not this specify the oc- legal curred theory May on which he now (1) too relies— remote possess probative (2) value and Under particular facts of case, this prejudice to the defendant outweighs the error pertaining to the admission of the need for proof is not preserved conviction, preserved, if —error was harm- for appellate review. less. 8. Sufficiency of Count Four of the

Additionally, several recent cases indictment. Like appellant Cantu, Ar improper have held that the admission of teaga contends that Count Four of the an extraneous can offense constitute indictment is fatally defective because it g., harmless error. E. v. Es Swanson fails to allege any location for the com telle, 523 F.2d 1250 1975); mission of the offense. For reasons stat Savage, Thomas 513 F.2d 536 Cir. ed above, we conclude that Arteaga’s claim is without merit. case made in- several 9. Sufficiency of Count Two criminating remarks Justice of the of the indictment. Arteaga argues that Roger Cerny: Peace Count Two7 was fatally defective in fail (Direct govern- examination ing to include “knowingly or intentional ment) ly” in its language. disagree. We An indictment is defective if it fails to al Q Did Mr. Arteaga make lege scienter elements expressly con you concerning smug- statement the tained in pertinent See, statute. e. gling marijuana? g., Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. Yes, sir, A he did. 427, 52 417, S.Ct. 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932). Now, Q as can what best recall But the elements need not be alleged in state to concern- did Mr. terms, and pleading good if it fairly smuggled marijuana? ing having his imports knowledge or intent. 1 C. smuggled Wright, he had A He said that Federal Practice & Procedure country. 125 marijuana into this at (1969). § 243^4 read, entirety: Texas, Two its 7. Count in District JOSE Defendant DEME- and Cas- TRIO ARTEAGA-LIMONES Julio TWO COUNT Garza, (the tillo-de la said Julio Castillo-de 952(a)) 960(a)(1) & (21 § U.S.C. being principal named not la Garza as but 5, 1973, May exact date or about On herein), imported and defendant caused jurors, Western grand in the unknown 1200 Here, language used was claim” accompa because Arteaga’s counsel, like by specification

nied of the statutory Fendley’s, failed to make known the section numbers. The was charged grounds of objection his as required by they must knowledge find or intent Fed.R.Civ.P. 51. I do believe, not how- in ever, order to convict. The indictment’s ad Fendley either articulates a equate apprisal legal of the offense charged rule or describes a situation so sub- and the trial stantially court’s instruction concern identical to the facts before us ing scienter, the need that we for evidence of are by bound that decision.1 prevented any injustice Arteaga. analysis Rule 51 proceed must on a States, Gearing v. United 432 F.2d 1038 case-by-case basis. The language re (5th 1970), denied, Cir. cert. 980, 401 U.S. quired to “make known” ground for 1213, 91 (1971); 28 L.Ed.2d 331 the action by desired counsel necessarily States, Glenn v. 536, United 303 F.2d will vary with the facts arguments and (5th denied, 538 — 39 cert. Cir. 372 presented to the court preceding the ob 734, U.S. 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 725 jection in question. Our cases and those (1963); States, Tallman v. United 465 of other reject circuits proposition (7th 1972); F.2d 282 Cir. United States that counsel must always articulate ob Mixon, v. (6th 374 20 F.2d Cir. jections in fixed or style. certain CONCLUSION See Jackson v. United 250 F.2d stated, the For the reasons convictions 1958); 897 Cir. United States v. imposed are AFFIRMED. and sentences Semensohn, (2d 421 F.2d 1209 Cir. 1972); cf. United States v. Indiviglio, CLARK, Judge, concurring Circuit in 352 (2d 1965) F.2d 276 (en banc), part dissenting part. denied, cert. 383 U.S. 86 S.Ct. I concur in the affirmance of Cantu’s 15 L.Ed.2d 663 question The portions conviction and in the of the ma- each case must be objection whether the jority opinion which reason to that con- expressed ground its grounds However, clusion. I because believe that sufficient specificity to focus the trial in the circumstances of this case suffi- judge’s legal attention on the issue in objection cient was made to the intro- volved. In the us, situation before four Arteaga’s duction of 1961 conviction at features present in Fendley or any the trial below and that its introduction other case cited by the majority convince error, was not harmless I must dissent me that defense position counsel’s from conviction. Ac- affirmance of his adequately expressed. opinion no on the express cordingly, by Arteaga other issues raised Fendley’s objected counsel on the majority. by reached ground of hearsay. Of all rules of evi- dence, hearsay is the two of most concedes riddled majority The exception including of a admissibility Business for prerequisites four — upon Records Act which the and need Government offense —nonremoteness prior relied in Fendley. He poten objected its outweighing the evidence for grounds which were not merely in the case impre- absent prejudice tial —are cise, but clearly incorrect under at 1198- opinion Busi- majority bar. See ness Urdiales, Records Act. objection v. 1199; States same as objections meritless 1975); United (5th Cir. several F.2d 1974). preceding exhibits. Finally, Miller, F.2d 751 Fendley v. contains no Fendley, indication However, United States trial court cut into or 1975), is said dominated (5th Cir. 181, 185-86 discus- sion on the objection. appellant’s review our “preclude that, imported approximately pounds upon objection, rather than to be the Govern- required marijuana, respond ment was objection to a Schedule I to his controlled sub- proper with a stance. authentication of the evidence. fact, In clearly the latter is required. view, responsive majority’s 1. To be the to the Miller, supra, States v. 500 F.2d at 761- sufficiency Arteaga’s discussion of the of ob- 62 and n.14. jection responsibility assumes that he had the justify prior the to exclusion of the conviction contrast, Arteaga counsel for kos v. United By did 328 U.S. object the 90 L.Ed. timely to introduction of the Cerny Peace Justice of the testimony of general conviction on the of the basis link between Castillo’s may provide some of evidence against rule admission of the tan- Arteaga, but it lacks story and objection, a meritorious type, this the prior con- authority of Second, gibility or the majority notes. the trial court the convic- viction. The introduction admitting Arteaga’s prior itself before about may have stilled doubts tion well inquired government coun- conviction credibility of account of the Castillo’s sel as to its date and received the answer in the minds of Third, trial, involvement Arteaga’s “1961.” earlier in the at the account, an jurors, since time of the introduction of Cantu’s con- or more one smuggling oper- viction, of a specific general, other time an instance trial, product type during may this sound like arose the ation that when told about a imagination trial court itself had asked of Cantu’s a fertile apparent history of objecting counsel whether he was on the with no defendant Finally, acquire an aura of truth if ground may remoteness. trial crime is shown to have record of inquiry court conducted into ad- the actor too, Then missibility of the conviction in criminal conviction. prior such a that Artea- informed jury fashion as to limit while the severely the amount of a similar of- sides, by ga of discussion counsel on had been convicted both that since not told fense, were degree brings they this case perilously custody. prior If a in not been “no-opportuni- close to classification as a he had relevant and both nec- can be See, conviction ty” g., case. e. United States v. harmless, time it same Huffman, and at the essary 467 F.2d 189 least the should that at circumstances, to me In I seems these cannot concur Arteaga had “served in have been told Arteaga’s an affirmance of conviction society back and been grounds objection on the his time” his doubts that reasonable to still unnecessary years use of a 1961 nine conviction harmful specificity. lacked of the conviction the use these circum- Arteaga’s defense. judges Trial objec- must understand stances, say with assurance that I cannot tions expedite rulings. their Artea- because the was convicted ga’s counsel clear, should have made a beyond a reasonable proved government precise objection by itemizing the crite- presently acts he committed doubt ria Urdíales, articulated in Miller and su- likely that he it is charged. I maintain pra, missing from prosecution’s he was shown to was convicted because argument below. But it plain seems a similar offense have been convicted for me that even in the absence of such clar- have had time remote to at a too ity precision, the trial court received presented issues be- legal probity for from the objec- combination of defense low. tions and requests its own sufficient in- I, therefore, formation to proper respectfully have made the dissent from rul- ing Arteaga’s as to admissibility of a conviction. conviction of the affirmance Therefore, this vintage. adopt the functional approach Eighth PETITION FOR REHEARING ON Williams, Circuit in United States REHEAR- PETITION FOR AND F.2d 428 which asks what ING EN BANC objection, context, considered in rea- sonably conveyed to the court and what PER CURIAM: prejudice ruling carried for the de- Rehearing The Petition for on behalf fendant. Such a test does not stop Arteaga-Limones Demetrio of Jose the literal words used counsel. and no member DENIED panel

Moreover, agree Judge regular I cannot nor active with the ma- service having requested be- the Court the error was harmless jority that polled Kottea- Court be on rehearing doubt under banc, reasonable en yond a Appellate Pro- Rules Federal (Rule 35 12) Rule cedure; Circuit Fifth Local Rehearing- En Banc is DE- for Petition

NIED. (dissenting): Judge

CLARK, Circuit my dissent stated the reasons For pe- grant opinion, panel rehearing. for tition America, STATES

UNITED Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendant-Appellant. O’LEARY,

Gerald Jr., Palm 75-3614 Butler, West No. Philip G. Summary Calendar.* defendant-appellant. Fla., Beach, for R. Rust, Atty., Don U. S. W. Robert Appeals, Court Fla., Miami, Atty., Boswell, U. Asst. S. Circuit. Fifth plaintiff-appellee. 8, 1976. April COLEMAN, and GOLDBERG

Before GEE, Judges. Circuit PER CURIAM: O’Leary appeals conviction Gerald his co- marijuana, conspiracy import of caine, hashish oil in violation of took the 952(a). O’Leary stand U.S.C. § par- denied at his and emphatically trial He admit- any conspiracy. ticipation in agent of met twice with an ted that he Drug Enforcement Administration hood- posing as an out-of-state who meetings were two of lum. These conspir- overt acts in furtherance acy indictment. enumerated However, of the ensu- O’Leary’s version completely differ- ing conversations he agent’s, from that of the ent Co., Cir., 1970, Enterprises, Cas. Inc. v. Citizens Cir.; Isbell 5th * Rule I. Part

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Jose Demetrio Arteaga-Limones and Mike Lozano Cantu

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 9, 1976

Citation: 529 F.2d 1183

Docket Number: 75--1648

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.