Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren G. HAYWOOD, a/k/a Beadie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-10-25
Citations: 468 F.2d 907
Docket Number: No. 72-2076
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren G. HAYWOOD, a/k/a Beadie, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 468
Pages: 907–908

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren G. HAYWOOD, a/k/a Beadie, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 72-2076
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 1972.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 21, 1972.
Robert Glass, New Orleans, La. (court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Mary Williams Cazalas, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). There are three assignments of error. The procedure followed by the district court in selecting the petit jury was proper. There was no error in the. refusal of the court to recess so as to recall a witness whose testimony had theretofore been completed. The remark made by the prosecutor regarding the alleged incorrectness of the methadone records on witness King does not rise to the level of error. Additionally, we conclude that.the charge given on reasonable doubt was sufficient when taken as a whole to convey the proper concept of reasonable doubt to the jury. There was no violation of the reasonable doubt definition of Holland v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150, although the district court charged in terms of refraining rather than hesitating to act. It follows that the court did not err in refusing to give the charge requested by appellant on reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.