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, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Philip Michael Memoli, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 449 F.2d 160
September 28, 1971
David K. Yamakawa, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Kenneth P. Snoke, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from a conviction and sentence for interstate transportation of a stolen car, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. We affirm.
The appellant claims that misstatements by the prosecutor during opening and closing arguments deprived him of a fair trial. No objection was made to the statements. No instruction was requested and none given that arguments of counsel are not evidence. Not all misstatements require a reversal of a conviction. Mares v. United States (10 Cir. 1968) 409 F.2d 1083, 1085. And, in the absence of an objection plain error must appear. Leonard v. United States (9 Cir. 1960) 277 F.2d 834, 841.
We have examined the record and the claimed prejudice is clearly not plain error, but assuming an objection was made, the claims of prejudice are clearly insubstantial. See generally, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969).
Likewise, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, notwithstanding appellate counsel's description of trial counsel's efforts, is clearly without merit. Appellant did not object to his representation below. Our review of the record does not disclose representation so inadequate that the trial court's failure to notice it was plain error. United States v. Sullivan (9 Cir. 1970) 435 F.2d 650, 652.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.