opinion: Louie ROSEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
  No. 18699.
  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
  Sept. 1, 1961.
  Wesley R. Asinof, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
  Charles D. Read, Jr., U. S. Atty., J. Robert Sparks, Asst. U. S. Atty., John W. Stokes, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
  Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.
  JONES, Circuit Judge.
  The appellant, Louie Rosen, and his wife, Wanda J. Rosen, were indicted for the offense of accepting wagers and conducting a lottery for profit without having paid the tax required by 26 U.S.C.A. § 4411, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203. They were charged in a second count of the indictment with being in the business of accepting wagers and conducting a lottery for profit without háving registered as required by 26 U.S.C.A. § 4412, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203. The appellant was convicted on both counts. His appeal from the conviction is before us.
  A search warrant was issued on the affidavit of Robert C. Joyner, who was a Special Agent in the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service. The affidavit and the search warrant were dated April 27, 1960. On the afternoon of that day agents of the Internal Revenue Service, accompanied by police officers of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, made a search of the premises described in the affidavit and warrant. This was a •dwelling in the City of Atlanta occupied by the appellant, his wife and their two -children.
  The search, which lasted from two until five in the afternoon, produced a number of papers which were introduced in evidence. One of these was identified as a recap or summary sheet of bets received showing twelve bettors with losses of $2,800 and wins of $3,266. There were two papers which were identified as collection sheets bearing the symbols of bettors, amounts of the bets, and the odds of the bets. One of these was under the table cloth on a kitchen table. The search disclosed and the court received in evidence telephone bills and cancelled •checks in payment for telephone service for the period of September, 1959, to May, 1960. Proof was made that during the May to September period 929 long distance calls were made to or received from telephones in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Birmingham, Alabama, or Mobile, Alabama, at addresses of persons who were registered as gamblers under the federal law. Before the search was completed Mrs. Rosen was placed under arrest and was taken from the dwelling by some of the officers. The other officers continued the search and the appellant came in as the search was being finished about five o’clock. The appellant was then placed under arrest. In response to the officers’ questions he stated that he had formerly worked as a dealer in Tennessee and in Georgia, but had been unemployed for a year. On being asked about the long distance calls, he said that • he frequently made calls to friends in other localities just to pass the time of day, and on some occasions when he was indisposed he made telephone calls that he didn’t even remember making.
  Such, in summary, was the Government’s ease. When the Government rested, a motion was made for the suppression of all of the evidence which was the result of the search and for a judgment of acquittal for each defendant. The motion to suppress was overruled. The motion to acquit Mrs. Rosen was granted. The motion to acquit the appellant was denied. The jury found the appellant guilty on both counts. On the first count he was given a nine months’ prison sentence and on the second count he was given a fine of fifty dollars.
  The appellant urges that the motion to acquit should have been granted because of the rule announced in United States v. Calamero, 354 U.S. 351, 77 S.Ct. 1138, 1 L.Ed.2d 1394, where it was held that Congress did not choose to subject all employees of gamblers to the tax and reporting requirements of the statute, but was content to impose them on persons actually engaged in receiving wagers. While conceding that the evidence showed that bets had been made, the appellant contends that it does not establish that he had made them. The records of gambling transactions showing wagers received, the telephone calls to and from registered gamblers, and the other circumstances made a case for the jury. The Calamero case is not in point.
  The ruling of the Court on the motion to suppress the evidence procured by the search is made the basis of a specification of error by the appellant. The rule provides that the motion to suppress shall be made before trial or hearing unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at the trial or hearing. Rule 41(e) Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. No motion to suppress was made on behalf of the appellant until after the Government had completed its testimony and rested its case. No effort was made to show that opportunity did not exist for making the motion before trial or that the defendant was unaware of the grounds for the motion. No reasons were given at the trial or on appeal as to why the court should, by an exercise of discretion, permit the motion to suppress to be made after the seized evidence had been admitted without any objection being made on the ground that there had been a wrongful search. No reason appears why the motion to suppress could not have been made before trial. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the motion at the time it was made. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Segurola v. United States, 275 U.S. 106, 48 S.Ct. 77, 72 L.Ed. 186; United States v. Volkell, 2 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 333, certiorari denied 356 U.S. 962, 78 S.Ct. 1000, 2 L.Ed.2d 1068; United States v. Romero, 2 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 371; Sandez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 239, rehearing denied 245 F.2d 712; United States v. Sansone, 2 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 887, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 987, 76 S.Ct. 1055, 100 L.Ed. 1500; Braswell v. United States, 10 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 706, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 845, 76 S.Ct. 86, 100 L.Ed. 752.
  A separate specification of error questions the admission of telephone bills and cancelled checks which were obtained by the search, on the ground that they were not contraband and were not described in the search warrant. That which has been said disposes of this question. It might be also said that the court asked appellant’s counsel, when these exhibits were tendered, if he had any objection and the answer was, “no objection.”
  There is no reversible error. The judgment of the district court is
  Affirmed.
  . “I have known Louie Rosen, alias ‘Nerp’ Rosen, 945 Carmel Avenue, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia, for a number of years by reputation as a bookmaker and associate of gamblers. On or about November, 1959, and on or about April, 1960, I received confidential information considered reliable that ‘Nerp’ Rosen was booking bets at 945 Carmel Avenue, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia. On April 21, 1960, and on prior dates, I cheeked records to the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Atlanta, Georgia, and determined that during the period February 11, 1960, through April 12, 1960, more than 250 long distance telephone calls were made from and/or to JA 4-2382, the telephone of Louie Rosen, Atlanta, Geoi'gia, located at 945 Carmel Avenue, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia. Among these telephone calls were numerous long distance calls either to or from the following numbers in the listed cities:
  Birmingham, Alabama
  TR 9-0401 TR 9-0402
  Chattanooga, Tennessee
  TA 1-6500 TA 1-8312 AM 6-9876
  TA 1-7547 AM 5-3928 MA 4-6533
  Mobile, Alabama
  HE 2-9797 HE 2-4911
  “Records of the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Atlanta, Georgia, and of the Chief, Intelligence Division, Wagering Section, Atlanta, Georgia, were checked, and the following information determined:
  “TR 9-0401 and TR 9-0402, Birmingham, Alabama, are telephones installed in a residence located at Route 13, Box 778, Birmingham, Alabama, and are the telephone of Maurice Daniel Dodson, d/b/a Superior Sports Service, Inc. Dodson is a registered gambler holding a wagering tax stamp purchased from the District Director, Internal Revenue Service, Jackson, Mississippi. One of the addresses listed in his application was Route 13, Box 778, Birmingham, Alabama. Maurice Dodson is known to me by reputation as one of the largest bookmakers in the southeast.
  “Chattanooga, Tennessee: TA 1-6500 is the telephone of William W. Champion, Shingle Road, Lookout Mountain, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Champion claims to be the owner of the Hickory Products Company, Onita, Tennessee. Records of the Chief, Intelligence Division, Atlanta, Georgia Wagering Section, reveal that Champion is in fact a well-known gambler and bookmaker in the Chattanooga area. TA 1-7547 is the telephone of Miss Mary Champion, Shingle Road, Lookout Mountain, Chattanooga, Tennessee. The responsible person for this telephone is the above William W. Champion. TA 1-8312 is the telephone of W. Cliff Whitsell, alias W. C. Whitesell, Route 4, St. Elmo, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Whitsell, alias Whitesell, is known to the Intelligence Division as a bookmaker who formerly worked for W. E. Alley, Chattanooga, Tennessee, a known bookmaker. He is now working for W. Condon Graham, Dayton, Tennessee. W. Condon Graham is known to me as the operator of a large scale bookmaking organization and is a former Federal Wagering Tax Stamp holder. AM 5-3928 is the telephone of G. W. Roper, 622 Cherry St., Chattanooga, Tennessee. Roper claims to be an accountant but is known to the Intelligence Division as a bookmaker. AM 6-9876 is the telephone of the Victory Bar, operated by J. E. Oakley, 622 Cherry Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Victory Bar is known to the Intelligence Division as an establishment frequented by gamblers and bookmakers. MA 4-'6533 is the telephone of Fred Gill, 402 Talley Road, Chattanooga 4, Tennessee. ■Gill is known to the Intelligence Division ■as a gambler and bookmaker.
  “Mobile, Alabama: HE 2-9797 is the telephone of the Norman Billiard Parlor, '7 North Jackson, Mobile, Alabama. The Norman Billiard Parlor is operated by William McCoy. William McCoy is known to the Intelligence Division as a 'bookmaker and is a holder of a current 'Special Occupational Tax Stamp-Wagering. HE 2-4911 is the telephone of R. W. Konkel, 960 Dolphin Street, Mobile, Alabama. Konkel is unknown to the In'felligence Division.
  “From my experience as a Special Agent investigating wagering activities of bookmakers, I believe that Louie Rosen, alias ‘Nerp’ Rosen, is conducting a bookmaking operation at 945 Carmel Avenue, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia.
  “On April 27, 1960, I personally checked the records of the District Director, Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta, Georgia, and determined that Louie Rosen, alias ‘Nerp’ Rosen, has not registered as a gambler and has not purchased the required Special Occupational Tax Stamp-Wagering. No person has registered as a gambler operating at 945 Carmel Avenue, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia, nor purchased the required Special Occupational Tax Stamp-Wagering, for that address.”
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama