Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SILER DRUG STORE COMPANY, Inc., Perry H. Siler and James Sutton, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-03-29
Citations: 376 F.2d 89
Docket Number: No. 17009
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SILER DRUG STORE COMPANY, Inc., Perry H. Siler and James Sutton, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 376
Pages: 89–91

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SILER DRUG STORE COMPANY, Inc., Perry H. Siler and James Sutton, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 17009.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
March 29, 1967.
William S. Tribell, Pineville, Ky., for .appellants.
Moss Noble, Lexington, Ky., for ap-pellee, George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on the brief.
Before McCREE, Circuit Judge, Mc-ALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge, and WEINMAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Carl A. Weinman, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The corporate defendant, its president and an employee were found guilty of the offense of selling legend drugs without prescription in violation of 21 U.S.C. 353 (b) (1) and 21 U.S.C. 331 (k). The corporation and its president were convicted on ten counts, the employee on eight. The corporation was fined $500 on each count, and each individual defendant was sentenced to one year in prison on each count, to be served concurrently.
As grounds for reversal, defendants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a continuance, that improper cross-examination was permitted, and that it was improper to hold both the corporation and its officer liable for the acts of the employee.
Upon consideration, we find these contentions to be without merit, and we therefore affirm the decision of the trial court.
Attention of counsel is directed to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, with regard to the power of the trial court to effect a reduction in sentence. See also United States v. West Coast News Company, 6 Cir. (1966), 357 F.2d 855 at 865.