Ruffino

Appellant was indicted on three counts purporting to charge violations of the Trading With The Enemy Act, § 5(b), as amended March 9, 1933, 12 U.S.C.A. § 95a, and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, § 3, 31 U.S.C.A. § 442 . He entered a plea of guilty to the first count, the other two being dismissed.

The first count indicates parenthetically the two statutes by their code citations, and proceeds then to charge that appellant “on or about the fifth day of July, 1939, at Sutter Creek, in the County of Amador, within said division and district, said defendant then and there not being a person permitted to acquire gold bullion, by any regulation issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and approved by the President of the United States, did then and there wil-fully, unlawfully and knowingly acquire certain gold bullion, in quantity particularly described as approximately 78.50 troy ounces of gold bullion, estimated .840 fine.”

Judgment of conviction was entered on the plea and appellant was sentenced to serve six months in jail and to pay a fine of $500. Llis argument here is (1) that the judgment is void for the reason that the Trading With The Enemy Act, as amended, does not make it an…

(concurring in the result).

Upon the authority of Shelp v. United States, 9 Cir., 81 F. 694, 696 ; Hockett v. *698 United States, 9 Cir., 265 F. 588 ; Davis v. United States, 9 Cir., 274 F. 928 ; Petersen v. United States, 9 Cir., 287 F. 17, 21 , I hold that an indictment for violating § 4 of Fxecutive Order No. 6260, 31 C.F.R. § 50.4 , 12 U.S.C.A. following § 95, need not negative the exceptions therein. Whether, in this case,' the indictment did or did not negative the exceptions I think it unnecessary to decide. The judgment should be affirmed.