¶1Robert E. Gibney, Mobile, Ala. (Court appointed), for defendant-appellant.
¶2Charles White-Spunner, U. S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
¶3Before BELL, COLEMAN and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.
¶5A jury convicted the appellant, Levi Fox, in ten counts of knowingly transporting five stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce and of knowingly receiving and concealing five stolen motor vehicles which were moving as interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C., §§ 2312, 2313. The stolen vehicles were four Cadillacs and one Buick. He was sentenced to imprisonment for an aggregate of six years, with five years probation. We affirm.
¶6That the cars were stolen and that they were transported in interstate commerce from Michigan to Mobile is not disputed. The evidence from which the jury could infer guilty knowledge was overwhelming. Consequently, the appellate issues are hopefully centered upon asserted trial errors.
¶7Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument we see no reversible error.
¶8The brief questions asked of Fox when he first arrived in Mobile did not *1094impinge upon his Miranda, rights, United States v. Montos, 5 Cir., 1970, 421 F. 2d 215.
¶9The identification of the stolen automobiles by an examination of the public and confidential identification numbers was accomplished in a constitutionally permissible manner, United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 441 (en banc) and numerous Fifth Circuit cases subsequently decided on the authority of Johnson.
¶10The District Court correctly retired the jury for further deliberation when a poll revealed that one juror was not certain of her verdict, Rule 31(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; United States v. Sexton, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 961; United States v. Bendicks, 5 Cir., 1971, 449 F.2d 313. The juror was not required to deliberate and vote in open court.
¶11The instructions to the jury, assessed as a whole, were not reversibly erroneous.
¶12The judgment of the District Court is
¶13Affirmed.