This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of the district court adjudging appellant guilty of embezzling public funds while he was a disbursing officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 653. Jurisdiction below rested on 18 U.S.C. 3231, and here rests on 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 1294.

Appellant was charged with embezzling $63,000 on unknown dates 'between December 1955 and June 4, 1957.'

(1) Insufficiency of the evidence.

(2) Error in refusing to strike all evidence of appellant's financial condition prior to June of 1957.

(3) Error in permitting the government to 'prove' embezzlement by use of the 'net worth theory.'

(4) Insufficient instructions with respect to 'net worth theory.'

(5) Error in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt.

Appellant conceded at oral argument that none of these points were urged below, or protected in the trial court. Appellant thus relies upon a showing of plain error. (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), 18 U.S.C.A.)

An appellate court need not review an alleged error not urged below, Lawn v. United States, 1957, 355 U.S. 362, note 16, 78 S. Ct. 311, 2 L. Ed. 2d 321, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, particularly where the court is not convinced an injustice was done a defendant. Lohmann v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 50, 51; Ryan v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960,278 F.2d 836, 841; Grant v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 291 F.2d 746, 748.

I-- The Facts.

Appellant enlisted in the Marine Corps as a private in 1936. At the time of the offense charged, he had by successive promotions reached the rank of Captain.

On July 1, 1957, he was to retire from the Service. His assignment in early 1957 was disbursing officer of the 2nd Infantry Training Regiment. A Captain Pross was to relieve appellant in that capacity. The changeover was to take place on June 25, 1957.

The disbursing officer had his private office in a Quonset hut. In it was a safe in which the disbursing officer's cash was kept. The disbursing officer alone, according to regulations, knew the combination of this safe.

Within the same Quonset hut was a partitioned shower. At 10:00 P.M. on June 24, 1957, hours before the changeover in disbursing officers was to take place, appellant left his minor children, without a baby-sitter, at his home in Oceanside and drove twenty-one miles to his office at the base. An armed guard, Corporal Tetems, was on duty. Appellant gave this guard a slip of paper, and requested the Corporal to obtain a certain enlisted man's pay record. This required the Corporal to leave the premises. At 10:30 P.M., another guard (Corporal Goggins) came from the movies to relieve Corporal Tetems. The disbursing office was empty save for someone taking a shower. At 11:00 P.M., while sweeping the floor, Goggins noticed the safe door was open. Tetems shortly thereafter returned, being unable to obtain the pay records. The two Corporals called the Corporal of the Guard and endeavored to reach appellant at home by telephone. Within three hours the remaining cash in the safe was counted, and found to be $63,000 short of the $201,667.53 667.53 for which appellant was accountable.

The assistant disbursing officer, that same morning of June 25th, commenced balancing the cash book. It was from this balance that the shortage was determined.1 This shortage was acknowledged by appellant that same June 25th, 1957. (Exhibit 11.) Meanwhile, Captain Hansberry's actions on the night of June 24th, 1957, are described in appellant's Brief (pp. 28-30) as follows:

'On June 24th, 1957, the Captain returned from work in the afternoon, had dinner, then he and Freeman Dougherty went to 704 No. Strand Street, where they did manual labor on the house for approximately three hours. He returned home and was in the process of cleaning up when he received a telephone call. The caller represented himself to be the officer of the day, and stated that he wanted an emergency leave payment made to a man whose family had been involved in an automobile accident. The caller asked if the Captain would come out to the base and make the payment. The caller gave the Captain the name, serial number, and outfit of the man involved. (R.T. pp. 769, 770)

'There are approximately thirty officers in this 2nd Infantry Training Regiment, and the Captain did not recognize the voice of the caller. (R.T. p. 770)

,'there were three minor children at home alone at that time; the Captain unsuccessfully sought to obtain a baby sitter, and left the children alone and went to the base. (R.T. p. 771) He drove to the base and arrived there in the neighborhood of 10:00 o'clock. He walked up to his office in the area between the two disbursing offices, saw three enlisted men on the porch of the enlisted disbursing office, greeted them, and entered the front of his building. (R.T. p. 806)

,'he walked in past the partitiion into the central portion of the office, and asked the guard on duty where the person to be paid was. He gave the guard the slip of paper on which was written the man's name, serial number and outfit, and requested that the guard obtain his pay record. As the guard was leaving he was asked for the number of the officer of the day who was stationed in the guard shack. (R.T. p 808) When the guard left he walked back into his own office, started looking through the phone book for the officer of the day's number, when he felt a gun in his back, and was told, 'never mind the phone'. He was also told not to turn around, do what he was told, and that the speaker had his girl in the car. (R.T. p. 809) He was instructed to open the safe. He did as he was instructed. He started putting money on top of the safe, was told to speed up when some one outside whispered that the movie was out. The man behind him then told him to leave the building and go straight to his car if he ever wanted to see his girl again. (R.T. p. 810)

,'he walked straight to his car, seeing no one. When he arrived at his car, someone in the backseat advised him to get in, and to start driving. He drove through the novie crowd, through the Camp San Onefre gate, and was directed to take the road towards Oceanside. When he arrived at the San Onofre Beach Coub Road turnoff, he was directed to pull off toward the beach. He pulled into a dirt area and stopped. He was told to get out of the car. He ot out, and was told to turn out the lights. He reached in and turned out the lights, turned, took a step, and was hit on the right side of the head. (R.T. pp. 812, 813) After a period of unconsciousness, he tried to get up, made some halfway attempts, and recalls a feeling or a sensation of rolling. (R.T. p. 813) he attempted to get up and down several times, and each time he commenced walking he had a tendency to fall off to his right. At this time he was on the sand, and actually did walk and fall in the water. (R.T. pp 813, 814) He called for help, remembers a light coming toward him, and he remembers talking to somebody, asking for the police, and asking if they had his girl. He remembers that they tried to help him up the cliff; he said that he could do it by himself. He got up to the car where he was asked some questions, and whether or not he could identify himself. Thereafter, his memory is not very accurate. The next he clearly remembers is that he was in an ambulance, and that the ambulance driver attempted to put his finger down the Captain's throat, pull his tongue out of his throat. (R.T. pp 814, 815)

'He was taken to the Naval Hospital at Camp Pendleton where he was retained one week. The only description of the man who held the gun on him, was that he had a heavyset, fat hand, which held a forty-five automatic, and the man was wearing a utility uniform. (R.T. p 819).'

The foregoing recital obviously represents the testimony most favorable to appellant. We do not propose to go over the more than 1,200 pages of testimony to give examples of this.2 But we are required, not to read the evidence in the most favorable way to the appellant, but the most favorable way to support the judgment. Glasser v. United States, 1942,315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 68 L. Ed. 680; Gilbert v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 291 F.2d 586, 592; United States v. Shaffer, 7 Cir., 1961,291 F.2d 689, 691; Campodonico v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 310.

While no one of the statements or admissions referred to in note 2, supra, had any tremendously devastating effect on appellant's story-- they were matters of sufficient evidentiary importance, particularly when viewed accumulatively, to have strongly influenced a jury's thinking. Appellant blithely totally ignores them, and many others of substantial import, in reconstructing the 'facts.' Typical of the offhand way in which appellant tosses aside certain extremely incriminating evidence against him, in his statement of the facts, is his one paragraph summary of twenty pages to testimony with respect to the $2,000 down payment on the 704 Strand Street property acquired by appellant and his wife. It reads:

'On page 977, in cross-examining the witness aboutthe source of the down payment for the purchase of the property located at 704 Strand Street, the witness testifies that $2,000.00 of the down payment was represented by a money order which was sent to his wife by a relative. The witness is later impeached on this point and it is developed that he wired the $2,000.00 to his wife in September of 1956 from San Diego.'

Appellee has included as its Appendix II the testimony of both Mrs. Hansberry and Mr. Hansberry on this subject. We will not quote the evidence in full-- but it demonstrates that of a certainty appellant (and inferentially, his wife) lied repeatedly upon the witness stand as to an extremely material point. (Mrs. Hansberry: Tr. pp. 678-679; 693-694; 728-731.)3 (Mr. Hansberry: Tr. pp. 886; 975-983; 991-995.)4

We can only say that a reading of the record not only establishes the sufficiency of the evidence of the guilt of the appellant to go to the jury, but leaves this court with no room for reasonable doubt as to his guilt. We cannot void the jury's verdict.

II-- The 'Net Worth Theory.'

The second, third and fourth errors urged relate to something originating in the mind and the choice of verbiage of appellant's counsel-- i.e., that the trial court permitted the government to prove embezzlement by the use of 'a net worth theory.' This, says appellant, contaminates all evidence introduced relating to incidents and facts existing prior to June 24, 1957, which evidence, says appellant, should have been stricken; and that it was error not to.

We cannot agree. Appellant takes the position he was perfectly 'clean,' under the evidence, until the night of June 24, 1957-- that there was no evidence of embezzlement up until that night. That is simply not so.

'My cash book,' says appellant, 'was audited by the Marine Corps and Navy Area Audit team. They found nothing wrong, therefore there could have been no embezzlement prior to the alleged robbery.'

This ignores the testimony that the 'audits' were in reality merely 'a verification audit of the cash.' (R.T. p. 235.)

'Nichols' verification consisted of computing from the entries in the appellant's cash book the amount of cash which should have been in the safe and counting the cash there to see if the totals checked out. The result of this audit was that cash on hand plus the vouchers held as cash equaled the balance in the cash book. Nichols' computation pertaining to entries in the cash book consisted of a check to see if the totals for the month of November had been correctly brought forward and then totaling the entries for the period of the first to the tenth of December to arrive at cash figure shown by the cash book. This computation did not include a check of all the vouchers held as cash to determine whether the persons credited by appellant with having received money had actually received the money.' (Appellee's Brief, p. 12.)

The fact that the monthly financial statements to the General Accounting Office in Washington 'balanced' does not prove that appellant's cash book (which never went to Washington) balanced, or that the entries in it were proper or truthful, or that appellant had not embezzled funds prior to June 24, 1957.

Appellant's position also ignores the fact that 'something was wrong' with his books, no matter how audited. As an example: No entry had beem made in December 1956 of $30,000 Hansberry had withdrawn for three days (Tr. 1039-42).

We need not go into details with respect to appellant's (and his wife's) income, for the twenty-three months between December 1955 and October 1957, of $19,679.96. Appellant could remember no other income (Tr. 1157). During that same twenty-three months appellant spent $47,656.71 (Tr. 1158-1161). No explanation was made by appellant, save that he kept a large ($5Ooo) 'cash building fund' in his bureau drawer, and his wife earned certain minor and unspecified commissions. Such explanations could well have been deemed less than satisfactory by any trier of fact, to say the least.

The principal case relied upon by appellant is Dobbins v. United States, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 218, 157 F.2d 257. That case itself is authority for the proposition that wrongful intent 'may be proved directly; or it may be inferred from the circumstance of the case as disclosed by the evidence * * *. The inference must be deduced by the jury, and not by the court.' Id., 157 F.2d at page 260. Cf. Loewe v. United States, 9 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 622.

Clearly, evidence of large expenditures or the acquisition of large unexplained sums of money, during the time charged as that during which the embezzlement took place, is some evidence of such embezzlement. United States v. Howell, 3 Cir., 1956, 240 F.2d 149, 158; Hansbrough v. United States, 8 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 327, 329; United States v. Jackskion, 2 Cir., 1939, 102 F.2d 683, 684, 123 A.L.R. 116, certiorari denied 307 U.S. 635, 59 S. Ct. 1032, 83 L. Ed. 1517; O'Shea v. United States, 6 Cir., 1937, 93 F.2d 169, 172; 1 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.) 154.

By reason of this authority, there was no basis for any instructions to the jury on any 'net worth theory.' None were submitted or requested by appellant. (Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P.) No objection was made to the instructions given. Holland v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150, is inappropriate.

III-- Error in Instructions.

We next reach appellant's point that there was error in instructions as to reasonable doubt. The instructions as given were proper (Tr. 1267-68). Taken as a whole, the instructions correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury. Holland v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. at page 140, 75 S.Ct. at page 127.

Furthermore, concededly no objection was made below to the instructions as given. It is now too late to raise technical objections as to whether the word 'it' refers to the noun last previously used in the instruction, or to the subject of previous 'it's. This type of alleged error is peculiarly one which must be brought to the attention of the court below, else it is waived. Ryan v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 836, 839. Fed.R.Crim.P. 30.

We find no error in the instructions. In fact, no error appears in the record. We fail to understand how any verdict other than guilty could have been rendered by the jury on the evidence before it.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The motion to assess costs against appellant is denied.