22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c8,Appellant Romero was found guilty after a court trial on a two-count indictment charging violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 . Romero’s counsel specifies as error the following: Appellant Tickle, who was named along with Romero in count two of the same indictment, was found guilty after a separate trial to the court. Tickle’s counsel alleges that the trial court committed three errors: The answer to each of the asserted errors turns entirely upon the facts as they appear from the record. There are no unsettled questions of law to be resolved on this appeal. For us, it is simply a matter of determining whether the district court properly applied well-settled principles of law to* the facts of this case. We have carefully read the entire record of the proceedings below and studied the briefs of counsel filed with this court, and we are satisfied that all of the assignments of error are without merit. Throughout all of the proceedings before him, the district judge ruled correctly in all of the instances raised on this appeal and, in addition, fully protected the rights of the appellants and accorded them a fair trial. Not one of appellants’ nine specifications of error is worthy of discussion. Affirmed.24:T4e3,

Appellant Romero was found guilty after a court trial on a two-count indictment charging violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 . Romero’s counsel specifies as error the following:

Appellant Tickle, who was named along with Romero in count two of the same indictment, was found guilty after a separate trial to the court. Tickle’s counsel alleges that the trial court committed three errors:

The answer to each of the asserted errors turns entirely upon the facts as they appear from the record. There are no unsettled questions of law to be resolved on this appeal. For us, it is simply a matter of determining whether the district court properly applied well-settled principles of law to* the facts of this case.

We have carefully read the entire record of the proceedings below and studied the briefs of counsel filed with this court, and we are satisfied that all of the assignments of error are without merit. Throughout all of the proceedings before him, the district judge ruled correctly in all of the instances raised on this appeal and, in addition, fully protected the rights of the appellants and accorded them a fair trial. Not one of appellants’ nine specifications of error is worthy of discussion.

Affirmed.