Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19720717_0040192.C02.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 13:03:24
Document Index: 661439875

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 78', '§ 240', '§ 32', '§ 78', '§ 371', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 32', '§ 78', '§ 3282', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 230', '§ 78', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 8', '§ 32', '§ 371', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 1732']

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,v.ROBERT SCHWARTZ, APPELLANT
Hays and Oakes, Circuit Judges, and Clarie, District Judge.*fn*
The appellant was convicted after a trial by the court of having conspired to violate § 8(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c),*fn1 and Rule 17 C.F.R. § 240.8c-1, which prohibit the unlawful hypothecation of securities by brokers or dealers, who transact a business through a national exchange. The trial court found that appellant had unlawfully caused Armstrong & Co., Inc., a broker-dealer, to hypothecate securities "carried for the account of" its customers, so that said securities were subjected to a lien in excess of the aggregate indebtedness of the customers on such securities. The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of $2,500 pursuant to § 32(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78ff, and 18 U.S.C. § 371. We affirm that conviction.
Armstrong & Co., Inc. (Armstrong) was organized in 1960 by Robert Edens and Bruce Armstrong,*fn2 and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a broker-dealer. Schwartz, an attorney, who had extensive experience in the securities field, acted as counsel for Armstrong which was the underwriter on several stock issuances. It was Schwartz's participation in the underwriting of a stock issuance for Triangle Instrument Co., Inc. (Triangle), that brought about this prosecution. Appellant was more than simply the firm's legal counsel; he was intimately involved in its business activities, even extending credit by exchanging checks with the firm on occasion, so that it would have needed deposits upon which it could draw.
The trial court found that at least 30,000 shares of stock were sold to individual customers of Armstrong and cash income in excess of $40,000 had been received for these shares. In addition, at least 70,650 shares were sold to brokers, who had not yet paid for them. At the end of the 45-day period, the Triangle issue had not been completely sold. When pressed by Triangle for a closing, Armstrong scheduled November 15, 1961, as the final date. Realizing that Armstrong did not have the $230,000 necessary to effect the closing, the appellant suggested that a loan be obtained from Sterling Factors. Principally through the efforts of defendant Schwartz, an agreement between Armstrong and Sterling was concluded for a loan of $115,000 secured by a pledge of the entire 150,000 shares of the stock with endorsements in blank. This agreement provided for repayment over a 4-week period, and for the release of the shares at the rate of $2 each. It was understood that all shares would be released, when the entire note had been paid.*fn3
Notwithstanding the Sterling loan, on November 15, the closing date, Armstrong was still short approximately $30,000 of the total sum due Triangle. Only by means of a loan subsequently negotiated by an officer of Armstrong was the necessary money finally obtained and the closing effected the following day. The trial court concluded that Schwartz's action in pledging all the shares of Triangle stock to Sterling Factors exposed the customers of Armstrong, who had paid full value for their shares of Triangle stock, to the risk that they might not receive the same, if Armstrong defaulted. In such event, they would be required to rely upon the general credit of Armstrong for the return of their money.*fn4
Appellant's Claims
Appellant challenges his conviction on several grounds: (1) that he was denied his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial; (2) that the phrase "transacts a business" is so indefinite as to render 15 U.S.C. § 78h void for vagueness; (3) that the hypothecated securities were not "carried for the account of" Armstrong customers as required for a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c); (4) that the Government failed to establish the element of intent necessary for a conviction under § 32(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a); (5) that the indictment should have been dismissed, because of the absence of sufficient evidence before the Grand Jury, and (6) that the trial court erred in receiving into evidence certain books and records of Armstrong.
The crime charged is alleged to have occurred between the dates October 10, 1961 and November 15, 1961, inclusive; however, the indictment was not handed down until November 14, 1966, one day prior to the running of the statute of limitations. 18 U.S.C. § 3282. In United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S. Ct. 455, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1971), the Court held that the sixth amendment is inapplicable to "pre-accusation delays." It indicated that the statute of limitations is the primary safeguard against the bringing of stale criminal charges but explicitly left open the possibility that the demonstration of "actual prejudice" stemming from pre-accusation delay might require a dismissal under the Due Process Clause.*fn5 404 U.S. at 324, 92 S. Ct. 455, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468.
A review of the record discloses that the appellant has failed to factually establish that he has suffered any significant prejudice as a result of any delay which led to the destruction of the Armstrong files. United States v. Scully, 415 F.2d 680, 683 (2d Cir. 1969); see also, United States v. Iannelli, 461 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Capaldo, 402 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 989, 89 S. Ct. 1476, 22 L. Ed. 2d 764 (1969). There is no evidence to indicate that he was unable to credibly reconstruct the hypothecation transaction. United States v. Feinberg, 383 F.2d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1044, 88 S. Ct. 788, 19 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1968). It would appear that under the circumstances, the appellant should have preserved the files for the benefit of his client, Armstrong, with whom he was so intimately associated.
An alternative aspect of the appellant's claim of unreasonable delay refers to the post-indictment period. The trial did not commence until March, 1971, approximately 4 1/2 years after the filing of the indictment.*fn6 The court has set out 4 factors, to consider when determining questions relating to a speedy trial; (1) length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) prejudice to the defendant; and (4) waiver by the defendant. United States ex rel. Solomon v. Mancusi, 412 F.2d 88, 90 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 936, 90 S. Ct. 269, 24 L. Ed. 2d 236 (1969), followed in, e.g., United States v. Fitzpatrick, 437 F.2d 19, 26-27 (2d Cir. 1970), and United States v. Stein, 456 F.2d 844, 847-848 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 922, 92 S. Ct. 2489, 33 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1972).
The Supreme Court has recently held in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), that all of these factors should be weighed with each other and considered together with other relevant circumstances, recognizing that this places upon the courts a duty to "engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process." Id. at 533, 92 S. Ct. at 2193.
While it could not be said that the Government promptly pressed the prosecution of count 18, we cannot attribute controlling significance to the Government's lack of vigilance for two reasons: (1) there has been no claim, nor does the record indicate, that any governmental delay here was a "purposeful or oppressive" violation of appellant's sixth amendment rights. United States ex rel. Solomon v. Mancusi, supra, 412 F.2d at 91, quoting Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361-362, 77 S. Ct. 481, 1 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1957). See also, United States v. Stein, supra, 456 F.2d at 848; and (2) we are not persuaded that the petitioner's claims of prejudice have any merit.
In addition to the previously discussed issues relating to the claimed destruction of records and alleged impairment of memory, appellant's principal claims of prejudice center around the unavailability at trial of a former SEC official.*fn7 Appellant represents that he had solicited and received from him an informal expression of opinion approving the proposed transaction. He claims that had the SEC official been available at the trial, he would have confirmed the appellant's claim that he had acted in good faith.
The trial court found, however, that the evidence did not establish that the appellant had discussed this transaction with a representative of the New York office of the SEC and received from him an opinion shown to have been based upon a complete disclosure of the relevant facts. It also concluded that even if such an opinion had been expressed under informal circumstances, the defendant would not have been justified in relying upon it. That court expressly found "that the defendant Schwartz did not proceed in good faith reliance upon a belief derived from an interview with a responsible representative of the SEC, that the transaction with Sterling Factors was in conformity with and not violative of the hypothecation regulations."*fn8 Even were this court to find to the contrary, and conclude that such a showing would vitiate the mental state requisite for a violation of this statute, the appellant's claim of prejudice must fail, since he did not see fit to timely avail himself of the deposition procedures afforded under Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P., so as to make avaiable at trial, the testimony which he now claims could have been relevant.
"It has long been the rule of this Circuit that the failure to demand a speedy trial constitutes a waiver of that right, (citing United States v. Lustman, 258 F.2d 475, 478 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 880, 79 S. Ct. 118, 3 L. Ed. 2d 109 (1958); United States v. Smalls, 438 F.2d 711, 714 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 933, 91 S. Ct. 2261, 29 L. Ed. 2d 712 (1971)); cf. Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 36, 90 S. Ct. 1564, 26 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1970). While Rule 8 of this court, concerning the prompt disposition of criminal cases, dispenses with the need for demand, waiver may still be considered as a relevant factor in deciding whether or not the constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated." United States v. Singleton, 460 F.2d 1148, at 1151 (2d Cir. 1972), See also Barker v. Wingo, supra.
The appellant's next contention is that § 8(c) of the Act is void for vagueness. He challenges primarily the application to his case of the jurisdictional phrase, "any broker or dealer who transacts a business in securities through the medium of any such member (of a national securities exchange)." We conclude that the trial court's construction of this term was proper, and that the phrase is sufficiently clear to satisfy due process requirements.
Appellant points out that that phrase, "transacts a business," was previously construed in a 1939 Federal Reserve Board decision, so as to bring within the purview of Regulation T any broker-dealer who conducted approximately 10% of its total securities business through the medium of members of a national securities exchange.*fn9 He argues that any subsequent construction of this phrase should limit the reach of the statute to those broker-dealers showing at least this 10% minimal factor. Since Armstrong's gross business in this area amounted to only 1% or less of its total transactions, appellant contends that § 8(c) of the Act is not applicable to him.
The trial court found that although Armstrong dealt primarily with over-the-counter securities, it regularly handled customers' transactions in securities listed on the major stock exchanges and transacted a modest business in such securities through members of the national securities exchanges. Although the business was only 1% or less, it was nevertheless a valued and material part of its overall business activites.
The trial court correctly concluded that Congress intended § 8(c) to apply to any broker or dealer, who transacted more than a trivial or de minimis business in securities through the medium of members of national securities exchanges. The very purpose of this Act was to provide remedial legislation, and it should be construed broadly, Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336, 88 S. Ct. 548, 19 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1967), in order to effect the congressional purpose of " insuring the maintenance of fair and honest markets." 15 U.S.C. § 78b. Cf. United States v. Re, 336 F.2d 306, 316 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 904, 85 S. Ct. 188, 13 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1964).
"The applicable test is whether the language conveys 'sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.' United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S. Ct. 1538, 91 L. Ed. 1877 (1947). See United States v. 16,179 Molso Italian.22 Caliber Winless Derringer Convertible Starter Guns, 443 F.2d 463, 466 (2 Cir. 1971), (cert. denied, 404 U.S. 983, 92 S. Ct. 447, 30 L. Ed. 2d 367 (1971)). A statute violates due process if 'men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.' Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 322 (1926). Even in criminal cases, however, where the vagueness standard is most stringently applied, the statute must only present 'ascertainable standards of guilt.' Winters v. People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515, 68 S. Ct. 665, 92 L. Ed. 840 (1948). As the Supreme Court stated in Petrillo :
'That there may be marginal cases in which it is difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls is no sufficient reason to hold the language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense. . . . The Constitution does not require impossible standards.' 332 U.S. at 7, 67 S. Ct. 1538, 91 L. Ed. 1877." United States v. Deutsch, 451 F.2d 98, 113-114, (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 1019, 92 S. Ct. 682, 30 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1972).
Appellant next contends that the Government has failed to prove an unlawful hypothecation within the purview of 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c). He argues that the securities here were not "carried for the account of any customer" at the time of the pledge to Sterling Factors, and that therefore no hypothecation occurred.
Section 78h(c) and Rule 8c-1 proscribe the hypothecation of "securities carried for the account of any customer," when that hypothecation subjects those securities to any lien or claim of the pledgee for a sum in excess of the aggregate indebtedness of the customers in respect to such securities. Rule 8c-1 (b) (2) sets forth three separate definitions of the trade term, "securities carried for the account of any customer."*fn10
The trial court found that each of these definitions was satisfied. Since we find that the transaction at bar satisfies at least the first definition, we need not consider the others.
The thrust of the appellant's claims on this issue, is that these securities were not carried for the account of any customer, because at the time Triangle stock was pledged to Sterling, some of the stock issue was still unsold and some had not yet been paid for. He argues that if the securities were being carried by Armstrong for its customers at the time of the hypothecation, then Armstrong was purchasing these securities not yet sold to and paid for by the public, for its own account subject to the lien of Sterling. Appellant contends that under Regulation A, 17 C.F.R. §§ 230, 251 et seq.,*fn11 Armstrong was barred from taking down stock in its own name, until the entire stock issue was fully sold and paid for, by the funds of the public subscribers. In appellant's view, Armstrong cannot be said to have carried Triangle securities for the account of its customers at the time of the hypothecation; otherwise, Armstrong would have been in violation of Regulation A. Such an argument is fallacious, for even if the transaction in question did violate Regulation A, appellant cannot negatively explain away and attempt to justify the hypothecation violation, by pointing also to a Regulation A violation. The hypothecation here subjected the customers, who had paid for their stock, to precisely the kind of risk from which the statute and rule were intended to protect them. These securities which had been sold and paid for were in fact carried for the accounts of customers at the time of the pledge, within the meaning of the statute and rule.
Appellant also claims that Armstrong never "received" the shares, because Armstrong had transferred its interest in the Triangle shares to its pledgee, Sterling, on the day prior to issuance of the stock, when Armstrong delivered to Sterling stock powers signed in blank. The trial court concluded that " if subsection (b) (2) (i) is in simplicity interpreted to include any security bought and paid for by a customer, that is so far 'received' by the broker that he is able to pledge it, then there is no problem in directly applying the statute" and rule to the hypothecation here.*fn12 Such a construction comports with the expressed Congressional intent to safeguard investors from irresponsible brokerage practices.*fn13 Cf. SEC v. Joiner Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 350-351, 64 S. Ct. 120, 88 L. Ed. 88 (1943).*fn14
Appellant's next contention is that his conviction cannot stand, because the Government's proof failed to establish mens rea -- a specific criminal intent to violate the statute and regulation. The trial court found that although appellant knew of the existence and terms of the antihypothecation regulation, the Government failed to prove that the appellant believed or knew that the transaction with Sterling was a violation of the law and regulation.*fn15 Section 32(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a), provides in part:
Appellant argues that the statutory requirement of willfulness necessitates proof not only of an intent to commit the act which constitutes the violation, but also a "specific intent to do that which the law forbids." United States v. Krosky, 418 F.2d 65, 67 (6th Cir. 1969). The final clause of § 32(a), however, makes it clear that the statute contemplates a "willful" violation by one who has no knowledge*fn16 of the violated rule or regulation. Since specific intent to violate the law presupposes knowledge of the law, it follows that such a specific intent is not necessary to sustain a conviction under § 32(a) for a violation of § 8(c) and the regulation adopted pursuant thereto.
"Defendant's guilt is placed on his knowledge of the rule, his conscious and intentional participation in acts which constituted a violation of it, and his necessary perception that what was done subjected the customers who had paid for their stock to precisely the risk which the rule intended to protect them from having imposed upon them. That defendant may have believed or hoped that the regulation did not proscribe the precise kind of closing transaction set up with Sterling Factors, did not acquit him of guilt . . . . The transaction was nevertheless, as the Atwater case (People v. Atwater, 229 N.Y. 303, 128 N.E. 196 (1920)) suggests, in fact a violation of a regulation known to exist, and a reprehensible act within its own dimensions independently of the regulation."*fn17
Proof of a specific intent to violate the law is not necessary to uphold a conviction under § 32(a) of the Act, provided that satisfactory proof is established that the defendant intended to commit the act prohibited. This conclusion is in harmony with the rationale in several decisions, which have considered the kind of intent necessary to sustain a criminal conviction or the imposition of a civil penalty for that class of violations designated as "public welfare offenses." Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952). See In the Matter of Cortlandt Investing Corp., Sec. Ex. Act Rel. 7682 (1965) at 5-6 (SEC upheld expulsion of a firm by the National Association of Securities Dealers in part for two violations of antihypothecation rule, 17 C.F.R. 240, 15c2-1, although it was found that the violations were inadvertent. The Commission concluded that while the lack of an intention to violate the rule might have some bearing on the penalty, it was not relevant to the question of whether a violation had occurred. Under all the circumstances, however, the Commission modified the expulsion to a 30-day suspension. Noted at 5 Loss, Securities Regulation 3202-3203 (Supplement to Second Ed. (1969)); United States v. Sussman, 37 F. Supp. 294, 296 (E.D.Pa.1941); cf. United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 91 S. Ct. 1697, 29 L. Ed. 2d 178 (1971); United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 607-610, 91 S. Ct. 1112, 28 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1971); Morissette v. United States, supra, 342 U.S. at 252-262, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288; United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 280-281, 64 S. Ct. 134, 88 L. Ed. 48 (1943); United States v. Ruisi, 460 F.2d 153, at 156 (2d Cir. 1972); Tager v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 344 F.2d 5, 8 (2d Cir. 1965); United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp., 376 F.2d 675, 680-682 (4th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 850, 88 S. Ct. 38, 19 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1967); Hughes v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 174 F.2d 969, 976-977 (1949). See generally 2 Loss, Securities Regulation 1307-1312 (Second Ed.1961), supplemented by 5 Loss, Securities Regulation 3366-3374 (1969); 3 Loss, Securities Regulation 1984-1987 (Second Ed.1961), supplemented by 6 Loss, Securities Regulation 4123-4127 (1969) (After reviewing the cases, Professor Loss concluded that "it seems reasonably well settled that 'willfully' in the SEC statutes does not have any 'bad purpose' connotation (beyond whatever bad faith concept is inherent in the fraud provisions as distinct from the registration provisions and the like).") But see, Herlands, Criminal Law Aspects of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 21 Va.L.Rev. 139, 142-150 (1935). But cf. United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 394, 54 S. Ct. 223, 78 L. Ed. 381 (1933); United States v. Van de Carr, 343 F. Supp. 993 (C.D.Cal.1972).
Because appellant was not charged with a substantive violation of the antihypothecation statute, but rather with conspiracy, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, to cause Armstrong to violate that statute, it is necessary to consider whether this conspiracy charge raises the level of requisite criminal intent beyond that we have held necessary to sustain a substantive conviction under § 78h(c) and § 78ff of the Act. United States v. Freed, supra, 401 U.S. at 609 n. 14, 91 S. Ct. 1112, 28 L. Ed. 2d 356. In Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678, 79 S. Ct. 1314, 1319, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1503 (1959), the Supreme Court held that,
" Conspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself." (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).
The cases applying this principle largely deal with the situation in which a defendant was convicted of conspiracy on a showing of criminal intent less than that necessary to sustain a violation of the substantive offense. See, e.g., United States v. Hysohion, 448 F.2d 343, 347 (2d Cir. 1971); United States v. Gallishaw, 428 F.2d 760, 763 (2d Cir. 1970); United States v. Bufalino, 285 F.2d 408, 415-416 (2d Cir. 1960); United States v. Ausmeier, 152 F.2d 349, 356 (2d Cir. 1945). We conclude that, under the facts of this case, a conspiracy conviction will be sustained upon the same showing of criminal intent necessary to make out a violation of the substantive offense. Cf. United States v. Mack, 112 F.2d 290, 292 (2d Cir. 1940). The evidence clearly indicates that appellant and Edens agreed to and did perform those acts which legally constituted a violation of the antihypothecation statute and regulation.
"The precise language of Mr. Justice Black in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 at 363, 76 S. Ct. 406, at 408, 100 L. Ed. 397, makes the bare vote of the Grand Jury enough. Here there was that and nothing more. There was no evidence 'sufficient' by any standard to support the charge. Nevertheless, the motion must be denied."
Appellant contends that the several decisions of this Circuit which somewhat modify Costello with respect to indictments based largely and unjustifiably upon hearsay, see, e.g., United States v. Arcuri, 405 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 913, 89 S. Ct. 1760, 23 L. Ed. 2d 227 (1969), require reversal here. There is no merit to this contention. This court has held that
"A defendant has no right to have an indictment dismissed merely because incompetent or inadequate evidence was presented to the Grand Jury. Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 78 S. Ct. 311, 2 L. Ed. 2d 321 (1958); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S. Ct. 406, 100 L. Ed. 397 (1956). But a motion to dismiss or quash an indictment because of the absence or incompetency of evidence before the Grand Jury is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and the decision to grant or deny the motion will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of that discretion. (citations omitted) As long as there is some competent evidence to sustain the charge issued by the Grand Jury, an indictment should not be dismissed. Coppedge v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 311 F.2d 128, 132 (1962), (cert. denied, 373 U.S. 946, 83 S. Ct. 1541, 10 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1963))." United States v. Tane, 329 F.2d 848, 853-854 (2d Cir. 1964).
See also, United States v. Ramsey, 315 F.2d 199 (2d Cir. 1963) (per curiam), cert. denied 375 U.S. 883, 84 S. Ct. 153, 11 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1963). We conclude that there was "some competent evidence" to support this indictment and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to dismiss it.*fn18 Appellant does not claim that the Grand Jury was biased or prejudiced against him. The "integrity of the judicial process" is not seriously threatened by this indictment. United States v. Leibowitz, 420 F.2d 39, 42 (2d Cir. 1969).
We finally consider appellant's argument that the trial court erred in admitting the blotters and ledgers of Armstrong into evidence pursuant to the Federal Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732. The trial court found that these records had been impeached for accuracy and completeness, but that they had been made in the regular course of Armstrong's business, and that it was the regular course of the business of Armstrong to keep such records. We find no error. See United States v. Re, 336 F.2d 306, 311-314 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 904, 85 S. Ct. 188, 13 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1964). Further, appellant has not pointed to any specific instance where the district court relied upon an unclear entry to his prejudice. Cf. United States v. Schabert, 362 F.2d 369, 371-372 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 919, 87 S. Ct. 230, 17 L. Ed. 2d 143 (1966).