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:T4cd,OPINION ON REMAND This case returns on remand by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87 , 96 S.Ct. 316 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 , after reversal of this Court’s opinion which is found at 501 F.2d 1136 . With the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1715 now being settled the remand required this Court to consider the remaining contentions of this appeal. They raise no substantial question that would require reversal of the conviction. Only one merits any mention. Appellant claims the introduction of welfare records evidently privileged by state law requires reversal. Rule 16 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure defines the admissibility of evidence in federal criminal trials. Privileges are circumscribed by this pertinent language of Rule 26: We need not decide whether under federal common law the information contained in the welfare records should be held to be privileged. See Carr v. Monroe Manufacturing Company, 431 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1970). No such information was introduced against appellant. The records were introduced for the solé purpose of providing an exemplar of appellant’s handwriting. Privilege would not extend to such matter. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.24:T4f2,

OPINION ON REMAND

This case returns on remand by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87 , 96 S.Ct. 316 , 46 L.Ed.2d 228 , after reversal of this Court’s opinion which is found at 501 F.2d 1136 .

With the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1715 now being settled the remand required this Court to consider the remaining contentions of this appeal. They raise no substantial question that would require reversal of the conviction.

Only one merits any mention. Appellant claims the introduction of welfare records evidently privileged by state law requires reversal.

Rule 16 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure defines the admissibility of evidence in federal criminal trials. Privileges are circumscribed by this pertinent language of Rule 26:

We need not decide whether under federal common law the information contained in the welfare records should be held to be privileged. See Carr v. Monroe Manufacturing Company, 431 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1970). No such information was introduced against appellant. The records were introduced for the solé purpose of providing an exemplar of appellant’s handwriting. Privilege would not extend to such matter.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.