(dissenting).
Where an indictment charges a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, the offense which is the object of the conspiracy need not be charged with that degree of particularity necessary where commission of the substantive offense, itself, is charged.1
Here, the indictment, in my opinion, sufficiently described and identified the substantive offense which the- appellants were conspiring to commit to apprise the appellant adequately of the charge against her and to enable her to plead double jeopardy if she should thereafter be charged with the same offense.
“That during the period from on or about the 1st day of April, 1957, to on or about the 18th day of October, 1957, at Nogales, Republic of Mexico, Tucson, Arizona, El Paso, Texas, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Denver, Colorado, and elsewhere, James W. Lewis, also known as Jimmy Six, also known as James Miller; Blair Jones, also known as Robert Jones; James G. Burley, also known as Gerald Burley; Betty Robinson, also known as Betty Burley; Margery Ann Davidson, and divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, did knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously combine, conspire, confederate and agree to fraudulently and knowingly receive, conceal, transport and sell narcotic drugs, to-wit, heroin, after the heroin is imported and brought into the United States contrary to law, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174.”
I would affirm.
. Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 81, 47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L.Ed. 545; Thornton v. United States, 271 U.S. 414, 423, 46 S.Ct. 585, 70 L.Ed. 1013; Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 447, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278; Davis v. United States, 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 24, 25; Brayton v. United States, 10 Cir., 74 E.2d 389, 390; Green v. United States, 8 Cir., 28 E.2d 965; Nicholson v. United States, 8 Cir., 79 F.2d 387, 389.