This appeal arises out of a conviction for violation on one count of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2314 , interstate transportation of stolen property of a value in excess of $5,000. The indictment was returned in January 1977, in the Northern District of California. It charged Robert Herko, Sidney Fried, Frank Guglielmini, and Joseph DiRodio with having transported three debentures, worth approximately $104,000 each, from New York City to San Francisco, California on January 10, 1977, knowing the same to have been stolen. After certain motions to suppress evidence were denied, the cases of Fried and DiRodio were severed from those of Herko and Guglielmini. Following jury trial beginning April 25, 1977, Fried and DiRodio were found guilty. DiRodio’s conviction has been reversed and his case remanded by this court, United States v. DiRodio, 565 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1977). The appeal of Fried was affirmed, United States v. Fried, 576 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1978). After mistrial in the cases of Herko and Guglielmini, a second trial was commenced on September 12, 1977. A motion for acquittal was denied and the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to both defendants. They appeal.

One of the principal objections made during this trial was the district court’s instruction to the jury on the basis of the Allen charge. In Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), the Supreme Court upheld the instructions given by the trial judge during defendant Allen’s trial. The pertinent instructions were given to encourage the jury to reach a verdict. The Court said:

In the present case the language of the charge was as follows:

The greatest impact in the two situations came from the timing of the instruction. In the Supreme Court, the charge was a supplemental one after the jury had returned to the court for further instructions. In this case, the Allen charge was a part of the original instruction. As such, the effect of a direct admonition or command as to a particular portion of the instruction was avoided.

The legal question is whether under the circumstances before us the Allen charge is impermissibly coercive. We believe it is not. Much, if not all, of the coercive effect is diminished or eliminated by the absence of a situation which points a finger at one critical portion of the whole body of the charge apart from the remainder. It is not enough in this situation to rely on the rule that the instructions must be interpreted as a whole. The Allen charge is addressed to the jury as a mandatory admonition and goes to the heart of their responsibility in a particular case.

We have considered the Allen charge a number of times and in most situations have allowed its use. But the views of the court have not been unanimous. In United States v. Contreras, 463 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1972), we found the giving of the Allen charge to be premature. The jury was not given the Allen charge as part of the original instruction, but had a limited form of the charge read to them after they requested a clarification on some points of law. We found the giving of the Allen charge to be improper because there was no indication that the jury had been deadlocked when the charge was given. United States v. Seawell, 550 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1977) imposed another limitation on the use of the instruction. In Seawell , a modified Allen charge was given and a stalemate still continued. The court thereupon reread the Allen charge and a verdict was reached within the hour. The judgment on that verdict was reversed and remanded for a new trial by a divided court which said:

On remand and retrial there was a second conviction and a second appeal to a different panel of the court. United States v. Seawell, 583 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1978). This court, again divided, pointed out that the “[ajppellant now seeks a ruling that the giving of the Allen instruction even once, as in this retrial, is error per se.” The court declined to do so and held that the Allen charge is proper absent unusual circumstances of coercion. The concurring judge who wrote a brief opinion pointed out the many jurisdictions which had disapproved the Allen charge, see 583 F.2d at 418 nn. 2 and 3, and that his concurrence was one not of approval but one that was compelled by the rule of court that a second panel may not overrule the decision of a prior panel without en banc consideration or absent unusual circumstances.

The decisions of other courts have also not been unanimous. The Supreme Court in Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 362 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972), cited Allen in its original form with approval. The decision in Allen has been followed in a number of jurisdictions and the charge ultimately upheld when it was given, as here, as part of the original instruction. In United States v. Skillman, 442 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1971), referring to other circuits which have rejected the Allen charge, the court pointed to the Third Circuit where in United States v. Fioravanti, 412 F.2d 407, 420 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 837 , 90 S.Ct. 97 , 24 L.Ed.2d 88 (1969), that court announced it would no longer accept the Allen charge. The Skill-man court however, declined to do so. The court said:

In United States v. Wynn, 415 F.2d 135 (10th Cir. 1969), the defendant appealed from a guilty verdict against him. He urged error and prejudice in a supplemental Allen instruction given by the trial judge after the jurors had reported they were unable to agree. On appeal the judgment was affirmed. Chief Judge Murrah, writing for the court, approved the supplemental instruction but stated that the court had repeatedly said that the substance of this charge should be included in the original instructions. Id. at 137. He cited the American Bar Association’s Standards on Criminal Justice Relating to Jury Deliberations and particularly noted sections 5.4(a) and (b) and the five criteria to be given before the jury retires which are substantially like the Allen criteria,

We find no reason to recommend the use of our supervisory powers to the entire court to the end that by its action the Allen charge will be discontinued in all future cases, or that a per se rule be adopted in all cases, or even in those cases where the instruction is not made a part of the general charge. We recognize, however, that the concern of this court and its divided views make further consideration inevitable. However, we note that it is only the charge which is argued to be impermissibly coercive that creates any problem and that did not occur here. For this reason, the Allen instruction was properly given in this instance.

Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in denying the appellants’ motion to suppress the evidence obtained by appellees’ search of Room 332 of the San Francisco Holiday Inn. That contention was also made in United States v. Fried, 576 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1978) and rejected. We also reject it here. The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was clearly sufficient under Fried and we likewise find it sufficient here and for the same reasons.

The court did not err in admitting into evidence post-arrest statements of both appellants. Herko stated that the Weyerhauser debentures were not in the room where they were later found. Guglielmini’s statement consisted of a denial that he knew certain persons involved in the transactions with the debentures. Neither statement was hearsay as contended and as defined in Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Finally, Guglielmini urges error below because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. On appeal, this court is obliged to view the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. United States v. Hood, 493 F.2d 677 , 680 (9th Cir. 1974). In light of such a standard, we find that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court was justified in finding the same.

Judgment AFFIRMED.

. We note the spelling of the name of Frank Guglielmini in various ways in various cases and in different papers in the same case. In the court reporter’s transcript here it is sometimes spelled Gugielmini (sentencing proceedings) and at other times Gugliemini (trial transcript). In the companion case of United States v. Fried, 576 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1978), it is spelled Guglielmini. In United States v. DiRodio, 565 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1977), his name is not mentioned in the text but is spelled Gugliemini in the caption at p. 573. In the case before us, No. 77-3758, it is spelled Guglielmini. We assume it is the same person throughout and adopt the spelling on the briefs filed for him assuming his attorneys know how to spell his name correctly in representing him. . See, e. g., United States v. Weiner, 578 F.2d 757, 764 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Seawell, 550 F.2d 1159, 1162 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Peterson, 549 F.2d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. See, 505 F.2d 845, 854 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Contreras, 463 F.2d 773, 774 (9th Cir. 1972); Sullivan v. United States, 414 F.2d 714, 716 (9th Cir. 1969). . "Length of deliberations; deadlocked jury. (a) Before the jury retires for deliberation, the court may give an instruction which informs the jury: (i) that in order to return a verdict, each juror must agree thereto; (ii) that jurors have a duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if it can be done without violence to individual judgment; (iii) that each juror must decide the case for himself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with his fellow jurors; (iv) that in the course of deliberations, a juror should not hesitate to reexamine his own views and change his opinion if convinced it is erroneous; and (v) that no juror should surrender his honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of his fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. (b) If it appears to the court that the jury has been unable to agree, the court may require the jury to continue their deliberations and may give or repeat an instruction as provided in subsection (a). The court shall not require or threaten to íequire the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or for unreasonable intervals.” American Bar Association Standards on Criminal Justice Relating to Trial by Jury, Part V, Jury Deliberations and Verdict, and particularly § 5.4(a) and (b). (Approved Draft 1968). . United States v. Contreras, 463 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1972), is distinguishable. In Contreras , the Alien instruction was given after the jury had returned to the court for further instructions. In the instant case, the coercive effect, if any, of the instruction is eliminated by giving the instruction as part of the original instruction to the jury.