Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie COOK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-11-17
Citations: 450 F.2d 339
Docket Number: No. 71-1854
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie COOK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 450
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie COOK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-1854
Summitry Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 17, 1971.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1971.
Craig Wilson, West Palm Beach, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Marsha Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
[1] Rule 18, 5 Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 495 and 2, in forging and uttering a United States Treasury check, and on another count charging possession of a stolen treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.Ó.A., § 1708. He received concurrent sentences on the convictions and now appeals. We affirm.
There are three assignments of error. The first complaints of the cross-examination by the prosecution with respect to prior convictions of appellant. This complaint is without merit. See United States v. Saitta, 5 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 830, 831.
Next, it is urged that the trial judge invaded the province of the jury through a comment on the conflicts in the evidence. This event does not remotely approach error and thus is without merit.
Lastly, appellant contends that he was denied his Miranda rights in connection with oral and written inculpatory statements. A careful review of the facts as developed on a motion to suppress and on the trial leads us to the conclusion that this claim is likewise without merit.
Affirmed.
. 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).