Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William VALENCIA, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-02-22
Citations: 677 F.2d 191
Docket Number: No. 367, Docket 81-1317
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William VALENCIA, Appellant.
Judges: Before OAKES and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges, and TENNEY, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 677
Pages: 191–193

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William VALENCIA, Appellant.
No. 367, Docket 81-1317.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 9, 1981.
Decided Feb. 22, 1982.
Opinion April 22, 1982.
Rehearing Denied May 13, 1982.
David Seth Michaels, New York City (The Legal Aid Society, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Thomas G. Roth, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Edward R. Korman, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before OAKES and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges, and TENNEY, District Judge.
Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:
On appellant's original appeal, United States v. Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1980), this Court remanded to the district court for a determination "whether there was sufficient evidence of direct communication between [appellant's wife and appellant] to permit the question of inducement of [appellant] to go to the jury." Id. at 1169. The district court held that there was not, and appellant concedes there was not.
But appellant had never argued that there was direct proof that Olga communicated the informer's inducements to him, and, in fact, no such direct proof appears in the record. (Appellant's Brief at 12.)
Appellant argues that the marital relationship and cohabitation of appellant and his wife permit the inference that appellant knew of the informer's inducements. The district court held that proof of the marital relationship was not enough and that there was no other proof that the Government's inducements had been communicated to appellant.
Finding no error, we affirm.