Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Appellee, v. Howard Ellsworth Armpriester, A/k/a Guy B. Armpriester, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 416 F.2d 28
Oct. 9, 1969
I. Lionel Hancock, III, Norfolk, Va. (Court-appointed counsel) and Campbell, Lusting & Hancock, Norfolk, Va., on brief, for appellant.
Brian P. Gettings, U.S. Atty., and James A. Oast, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief, for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, BOREMAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Finding no substance in this appeal, we decline to hear oral argument and we affirm.
Defendant's arrest, pursuant to a warrant charging mail fraud the validity of which is not questioned, justified an examination of the packages that he was carrying at the time of arrest. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Because the search was incident to a valid arrest and not unreasonable in scope, there was no error in the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the incriminating evidence which was uncovered and used at his trial.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of defendant's request for a fourth continuance, and the evidence was quite sufficient to submit the case to the jury and to enable it to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty.
Affirmed.