¶1United States Court of. Appeals Ninth Circuit.
¶2Arthur Mabry (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
¶3Edward B. Frank (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Crim. Div., Howard B. Frank, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
¶4Before CHAMBERS and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.*
¶7The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
¶8The point on the method of search and seizure under a search warrant was not made before trial as required by Rule 41 (e) Fed.R.Crim.P. Late in the trial an issue of probable cause was tendered on the search warrant. Thus, the Government was not obligated to meet a challenge that was never made, i. e., method.
¶9There were convictions on five counts. The sentences were wholly concurrent. On count, four, we find the case close on sufficiency of the evidence, but while we are authorized to consider the point, we still need not do it.
¶10There was sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence to sustain the convictions on four counts.