Case Name: Lawrence Paula SNOWDEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-10-16
Citations: 384 F.2d 357
Docket Number: No. 23565
Parties: Lawrence Paula SNOWDEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 384
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
Lawrence Paula SNOWDEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 23565.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 16, 1967.
Godbold, Circuit Judge, dissented.
James F. Mulla, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellant.
John C. Ciolino, Asst. U. S. Átty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before WISDOM and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges, and McRAE, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, Lawrence P. Snow-den, was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment charging unlawful sale of narcotics in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and 4705(a). Snowden now, for the first time, attacks the indictment on the ground that the identity of the purchaser was not shown and contends that this renders the indictment insufficient under Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We rejected this contention in Borroto v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 338 F.2d 60, and, in keeping with this decision and those of the four other Circuits that have considered this issue, continue to do so.
Snowden asserts that the decisions in the other Circuits apply only to collateral attacks on indictments and not to direct attacks, in which category the present case falls. Borroto did involve a direct attack, however. In any event, we perceive no distinction between direct and collateral attacks relevant to the present issue.
We find no substance in Snow-den's assertion that the remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument were contrary to the facts and evidence and were prejudicial to him. As to his contention that the trial court committed error in failing to instruct the jury on entrapment, we find no evidence developed in the trial raising this issue. See Brainin v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 314 F.2d 460, reh. denied 5 Cir., 317 F.2d 69.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
. Collins v. Markley, 7 Cir. 1965, 346 F.2d 230; Taylor v. United States, 8 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 918; Clay v. United States, 10 Cir. 1963, 326 F.2d 196; Llamas v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1963, 226 F.Supp. 351, aff. 2 Cir. 1964, 327 F.2d 657.