Is it error for the judge to fail to tell the jury that the jury did not have to make the inference of importation from the fact of possession?

Appellant also argues that it was error for the judge to fail to tell the jury, despite defendant's specific request, that the jury did not have to make the inference permitted by 21 U.S.C. 174. Although it would have been better for the judge to have followed United States v. Peeples, 377 F.2d 205, 210-211 (2 Cir. 1967) and said in so many words that the jury could refuse to make the inference of importation from the fact of possession and therefore could acquit, it would appear that the judge conveyed that meaning although not in the explicit language that counsel requested be adopted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.