¶1See 89 S.Ct. 1765.
¶2Richard B. Weinstein (appeared) of Golden & Weinstein, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
¶3Michael Heuer (appeared) Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. M. Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
¶4Before CHAMBERS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and SMITH *, District Judge.
¶7This is an appeal from a conviction of attempted robbery of a national bank office in the Los Angeles area. The event was a violent one with gunfire.
¶8There can be little doubt that there was adequate evidence to sustain beyond a reasonable doubt the conviction. Justice had an alibi which he related on the stand. It was possible, but even on paper sounds improbable.
¶9Here it is asserted that the trial judge was irascible and it prejudiced the defendant. His impatience was equally *1324directed at government and defense counsel. He himself repeatedly cautioned the jury that his remarks constituted no preference as to sides. And, there was reason for some of the impatience.
¶10Questioning of the jury was somewhat limited, but we find it within the sound discretion of the judge.
¶11We find the charge of trial counsel’s inadequacy without merit.
¶12As to alleged erroneous admission of evidence, we find that whatever shortage there was of direct testimony for foundations was clearly taken care of by circumstantial evidence.
¶13A government witness was permitted to remain in court over defense objections. Under the facts here, the ruling was in the exercise of a sound discretion.
¶14Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of conviction.