Case Name: Jack C. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-08-27
Citations: 399 F.2d 636
Docket Number: No. 21077
Parties: Jack C. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 399
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Jack C. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 21077.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 27, 1968.
Joseph C. Melino (argued), San Jose, Cal., for appellant.
Michael Heuck (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. M. Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before POPE and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has been adjudged guilty of possession with intent to sell and with passing of counterfeit $100 Federal Reserve Notes. 18 U.S.C. § 472-474.
Testimony reveals that on two occasions appellant made purchases of liquor giving a counterfeit $100 note as payment and receiving change. Testimony also reveals that his apartment was searched and that liquor of the brands purchased by him was found.
Appellant attacks the warrantless search as unlawful and assigns as error the court's failure to exclude testimony with reference to it. We find no prejudice. Appellant admitted the liquor pur chases. His defense was that he did not know that the notes were counterfeit.
Appellant complains that he was not granted a continuance so that certain witnesses might be located and subpoenaed. The court's denial of the motion for continuance was without prejudice to its renewal. Indeed, the court indicated to counsel its willingness/ to grant a renewal of the motion the following morning if counsel indicated that his efforts to locate the witnesses were unsuccessful. There was .Ao renewal of the motion and counsel made not attempt to subpoena these witnesses. Counsel quite apparently decided against attempting to call the witnesses.
Appellant asserts that failure to renew the motion deprived him of adequate representation by counsel. Upon this record no sufficient showing is made.
Judgment affirmed.