# Petition — Kershman v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2429%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 434 U.S. 892 ## Text Supreme Coust, us ae ee AUG 9 1977 IN THE MICHAEL RODAK, JR., CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ’ a OCTOBER TERM, 1977 no. BI" 29% BERNARD KERSHMAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit THEODORE F. SCHWARTZ 7701 Forsyth Suite 560 Clayton, Missouri 63105 Attorney for Petitioner INDEX UNITED STATES v. OLIVARES-VEGA, 495 F 2d 827 | a= ——-)0)—S—SO— i ‘( Ny Soe Vee - (2d Cir. 1976 portion of a charge was ueld not to be error in ), and cases cited at n. 12-14. See also Uni that case: ted States v. Dozier, 522 F 2d 226, 227 | (2nd Cir. 1975 In other words, you may find the ), applying the principle to defendant acted knowingly if you find that . §841 (a). either he actually knew he had cocaine or that he deliberately closed his eyes to a. 3 -10- ——wUE— T UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Accordingly, we find that appellant's contention Wo. 76-2075 Wt <3 iad /2) United States of America, September Term. 37 _ that the voir dire examination was deficient is . Appellee, without merit. Appeal from the United States vs. District Court for the i. The appellant finally contends that the penned teste. a ne a . J .* . . J 4 * evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Spoescens « We have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the CEES GENES GD SS OH) EP SHEE Gs Ge Ce ee record of the United States District Court for the Eastern District record and an exhaustive recitation of it would of Missouri and briefs of the respective parties end wes axgued by not be helpful. Taking the substantial evidence , counsel. On Consideration Whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged we find in the record in the view most favorable by thie Coust thet the judguent end sentence of the ceid Distsict to the government and accepting as established all Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed. May 18, 1977 reasonable inferences from the evidence that tend to support the action of the jury, United States v. Frazier, 545 F. 2d 71, 74 (8th Cir. 1976), we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdicts. Affirmed. A true copy. Attest: . CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. + Although appellant argues that the district court erred in allowing Officer Becker to testify to an fo} out-of-court declaration made by co-defendant Smit! Sere ctuyel f 2 To" are it is clear from the record that Smith's statement ae: a that he could not write smaller (made during the ieee time he was giving a handwriting sample) was not SR er offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. ainsi, ve Re coe. 98 ananhe. ten Circuit. Therefore, we find appellant's argument without SSRO Ste 4% hana aed j -67- __ | BEST COPY AVAILABLE APPENDIX C APPENDIX D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 76-2075 September Term, 1976 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT United States of America, No. 76-2075 September Term, 1976 Appellee, United States of America, Appeal from the United States Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) we. Appeal from the United States V8. ; District Court for the- } ) ) ) ) District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Bernard Kershman, Eastern District of Bernard Kershman, Appellant. Missouri. , Appellant. On consideration of Appcllant's motion for stay of issuance of mandate in this cause, it is now here ordered The Court having considered petition for rehearing en banc by this Court that Appellant's mction for stay of issuance filed by counsel for appellant and, being fully advised in the of mandate be and is hereby denied. premises, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing en banc June 27, 1977 be, and it is hereby, denied. Considering the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing also be, and it is hereby, denied. June 10, 1977 Pgitey =: ! fe) wo 1 -68-— APPENDIX E Supreme Court of the United States No. A-44 BERNARD KERSHMAN, Petitioner, UNITED STATES ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Upon ConsmEraTION of the application of counsel for petitoner46), It Is Ornperep that the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the above-entitled cause be, and the same is hereby, extended to and inciucing August 9 ,19_Z /s/ Lewis F. Powell Associate Jusctce of be Sucreme Court of we United Siates Dated this L5th day of __ July 1977 -70- --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2429%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.