Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aundra O. MAGEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1978-11-02
Citations: 586 F.2d 636
Docket Number: No. 78-5089
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aundra O. MAGEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 586
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aundra O. MAGEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 78-5089.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 1978.
Decided Nov. 2, 1978.
John D. O’Connell, Detroit, Mich. (Court-appointed-CJA), for defendant-appellant.
James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Ellen Ritteman, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and LAWRENCE, District Judge.
Honorable Alexander A. Lawrence, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Magee seeks reversal after a conviction by a jury on one count of smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 (1976), and an additional count of conspiracy to do so under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1976).
The evidence at trial showed that Magee, traveling in a car driven by one Jenkins, sought to enter the United States from Canada after Jenkins had told the customs inspector that they had nothing to declare. On inspection, $1,400 worth of clothes, which Magee admitted he had purchased in Canada, were discovered.
Appellant's principal argument on appeal is that the regulation of the Customs Service was so overbroad and vague as to deny him due process. Our review of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 545 and two regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 148.11 and 19 C.F.R. § 123.3, indicates no such lack of specificity or overbreadth.
Further, the District Judge did not err in admitting statements of Magee's co-conspirator, Jenkins, and there was ample evidence to corroborate defendant's own admissions.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.