Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such
*406
character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969,
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on the jury verdict finding appellant guilty of violating the Dyer Act in that he transported a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. There are three assignments of error. First, it is urged that the court erred in refusing to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal. Second, it is claimed that the court should have granted appellant’s motion for new trial. Lastly, appellant contends that the jury charge was erroneous. We affirm.
There was no objection to the charge. Moreover, we find no error in the charge. We likewise find no merit in the other two assignments of error.
Taking the view most favorable to the Government to support the verdict, Glasser v. United States, 1942,
These facts and the inferences therefrom were sufficient to support the elements of the offense, namely that the vehicle wms stolen, that appellant transported it in interstate commerce with knowledge that it had been stolen and that the transportation was willfully done. Cf. Dennison v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967,
Affirmed.
