Appellant was convicted of violating certain provisions of the federal narcotics laws. Appellant contends (1) that the Government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was guilty; (2) that appellant had been entrapped; (3) that the court abused its discretion in allowing a government agent to remain in the courtroom after the rule had been invoked; and (4) that appellant was deprived of a fair trial because of remarks of counsel for the Government in his summation to the jury.
After a careful consideration of the entire record, we find to the contrary. We find no merit in the contention of variance between the indictment and allegations and evidence, and of the failure of the Government to make adequate proof of the sales of drugs on which the appellant was convicted.
The question of permitting the Government to have a representative excepted from the Rule is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and we have so held several times.
It appears, moreover, that the argument of counsel for the Government was made largely in response to counsel for appellant's argument. For example, the appellant's attorney, in his closing argument, stated:
The argument of the defense that the attorney for the prosecution did not believe this man was guilty, that he was merely doing a job for himself, provoked the retort of the prosecutor that he did believe him to be guilty:
After a careful examination of the record, we find that the rulings complained of were within the sound discretion of the lower court.