The most questionable aspect of the letter is its failure to say more about Mr. O'Sullivan's cases than that they involve 'violations of federal criminal statutes by persons whose identities are unknown . . ..' To hold this language in compliance with § 515(a) might seem to go beyond the literal statutory language and legislative history, a step 'courts must (take) cautiously for fear of overreaching their traditional role, particularly where statutes may be dangerously expanded to encroach on individual liberties.' In re Persico, 522 F.2d 41, 65 (2d Cir. 1975). Even so, courts have held similarly worded letters of appointment, standing alone, to be sufficiently specific to comply with § 515(a), United States v. Wrigley, supra, 520 F.2d at 367; Infelice v. United States, supra at 206. We need not go so far here. We deal not with the appointment of private outside counsel, but with that of an attorney regularly employed on a full-time basis by the Department of Justice as part of its Strike Force program. In this circumstance, 'specific direction' to such an attorney 'need not be embodied in a single written authorization, but may be implied from other writings, guidelines, practices and oral directions transmitted through a chain of command within the Department.' In re Persico, supra at 66.

The Strike Force program involves the coordination and cooperation of numerous law enforcement officials within particular judicial districts and within the Department of Justice itself. The details of this organizational structure and of its operation have been amply explicated elsewhere, see In re Persico, supra, and need not be outlined here. Congress itself has not been unaware of the role played by special Strike Force attorneys within the Department and Congress has given 'repeated . . . approval of Strike Force appropriations.' Id. at 65. While these appropriations do not imply that Congress specifically approved broad grants of authority to particular special attorneys of the Strike Force, it is clear from all the circumstances that Congress authorized the Justice Department to undertake a broadgauge and effective attack on organized crime. The commission letter challenged here is an integral part of such a program and must be interpreted against this background. When the letter of appointment is examined in this context it is evident that the specific direction called for by § 515(a) has been provided.4 Accordingly, special attorney O'Sullivan was properly authorized to conduct the grand jury inquiry and subsequent proceedings involving the appellant.

Appellant also contends that 18 U.S.C. § 1955 is unconstitutional. There are two branches to his argument. First, he claims § 1955 violates due process because it makes the federal violation dependent on varying state laws and therefore results in non-uniformity among the states as to what is or is not illegal gambling activity. However, this claim must fail. Congress is empowered to enact statutes which incorporate state laws by reference, and it is not required to achieve national uniformity in every exercise of the commerce power. United States v. Sacco, 491 F.2d 995, 1003 (9th Cir. 1974). See United States v. Smaldone, 485 F.2d 1333, 1343 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S. Ct. 1934, 40 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1974); United States v. Palmer, 465 F.2d 697, 699 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 874, 93 S. Ct. 119, 34 L. Ed. 2d 126, rehearing denied, 409 U.S. 1051, 93 S. Ct. 513, 34 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1972). Cf. Schneider v. United States, 459 F.2d 540, 542--43 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877, 93 S. Ct. 129, 34 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1972). Appellant also claims that § 1955 is an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce power because there was no rational basis for Congress to find that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, or alternatively that the class of activities proscribed by the statute is not rationally connected to the stated purpose of suppressing organized crime. However, this claim likewise cannot avail. An examination of § 1955 and the legislative history of Title VIII of the Organized Crime Act of 1970 of which it is an integral part clearly indicates that there was an adequate basis for Congress to conclude that illegal gambling has a detrimental impact on interstate commerce, and that in enacting § 1955 it would be within the bounds of the commerce power. United States v. Hunter, 478 F.2d 1019, 1021 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 857, 94 S. Ct. 162, 38 L. Ed. 2d 107 (1973); United States v. Riehl, 460 F.2d 454, 458 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230, 233 (2d Cir. 1972), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 417 U.S. 903, 94 S. Ct. 2597, 41 L. Ed. 2d 208 (1974); United States v. Harris, 460 F.2d 1041, 1043--49 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877, 93 S. Ct. 128, 34 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1972); see Perez v. United States,402 U.S. 146, 91 S. Ct. 1357, 28 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1971); Schneider v. United States, supra at 541; United States v. Smaldone, supra at 1342--43.

Appellant further contends that his indictment failed to charge him properly with a violation of state law as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1955(b)(1)(i). Specifically he claims that the statute under which he was charged, viz. Mass.Gen.L. c. 271, § 17,5 focuses upon gambling on the outcome or conduct of a contest involving skill or other special abilities, whereas he in fact was alleged to have participated in a 'partimutuel numbers operation' which involves gambling on a game of chance. Appellant points to Mass.Gen.L. c. 271, § 7,6 which prohibits lotteries or gambling on games of chance as the appropriate statute covering the activity he is alleged to have engaged in.

While the government concedes that § 7 emphasizes the element of chance in the contest upon which money is wagered, see Commonwealth v. Lake, 317 Mass. 264, 57 N.E.2d 923 (1944), and is therefore possibly more appropriate,7 it nevertheless contends that appellant's activity was also a violation of § 17 since the alleged 'numbers game' involved the registering and maintaining of records on bets 'upon the result of a . . . contest . . . or competition' namely the daily dollar totals of winning prices paid in parimutuel wagering.8 While Massachusetts has never definitively determined whether a 'numbers game' is within the purview of § 17, it would appear that state law does attempt to make distinctions about the nature of the underlying contest upon which wagering occurs. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Boyle, 346 Mass. 1, 4, 189 N.E.2d 844, 846 (1963); Commonwealth v. Demogenes, 349 Mass. 585, 588--89, 211 N.E.2d 226, 228 (1965); Gallinaro v. Commonwealth, 362 Mass. 728, 733, 291 N.E.2d 420, 423 (1973). However, a decision on this question is not necessary to a disposition here. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7 provides that failure to cite a statute is not ground for reversal of a conviction if 'the error . . . did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.' See United States v. Van West, 455 F.2d 958 (1st Cir. 1972). The indictment alleged that appellant conducted an illegal gambling business involving five or more persons which accepted bets 'on a parimutuel number pool and on the result of a trial and contest of skill . . .,' operating for thirty days, and yielding a gross revenue in excess of $2,000 in a single day. The reference to a 'parimutuel number pool' was enough to provide appellant with notice that a game of chance was charged, as well as a contest of skill. United States v. Marrifield, 515 F.2d 877, 883 (5th Cir. 1975). See United States v. Jones,491 F.2d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1974); cf. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431, 52 S. Ct. 417, 419, 76 L. Ed. 861, 865 (1932). Given this notice, the failure to cite § 7 as well as § 17 was harmless error.

Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in allowing Cross, an FBI gambling expert, to testify concerning the results of an analysis of betting slips and records seized from the gambling operation. Appellant claims that Cross' testimony was hearsay since it was based on notes and a report prepared by others. However, we do not find this claim persuasive. The betting slips and records were originally analyzed and totalled in the FBI laboratory. Although Cross, a senior examiner, did not himself perform the calculations, he did ascertain the validity of the computations by sample checks and he personally verified that there were twenty-three writers involved in the operation. Under the circumstances Cross' testimony did not go beyond the reasonable reliance on the reports of others permitted an expert who customarily relies on such reports, and as such its admission into evidence by the trial court was not improper. Jenkins v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 307 F.2d 637, 641 (1962) (en banc); Fed.R.Evidence 703. See Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775, 777 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,382 U.S. 963, 86 S. Ct. 449, 15 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1965), rehearing denied, 383 U.S. 923, 86 S. Ct. 900, 15 L. Ed. 2d 680 (1966).

Appellant's final objection--that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict--is largely premised on the assumption that Cross' testimony should not have been admitted, and accordingly is without merit.

Affirmed.