The defendant appeals from a conviction of unlawful importation of a narcotic in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174,. upon a jury finding of guilt. Apart, from certain rulings which, if erroneous,, were in defendant’s favor, only two matters possibly warrant mention. The first: is defendant’s contention that as a citizen returning from abroad he could not,, in the absence of reasonable grounds-for suspicion, be searched by customs-inspectors at the airport after he had passed through immigration, although, coneededly, he could have been if the order of procedure were reversed and the-customs enclosure had been located so> as to be encountered before immigration. No authority can be found for such an arbitrary requirement. Passengers are subject to several examinations-before being permitted to enter the country and no reason has been suggested' why, assuming all are accomplished with-reasonable promptness, they must be-done in any particular order. This is not a case where defendant had received unconditional consent to enter the country. There is nothing to this point.

Secondly, the defendant objects: to the court’s refusal to instruct the* jury that the phrase “unless the defendant explains the possession [of the narcotic] to the satisfaction of the jury” 1 encompasses any reason the jury might find satisfactory even though it had nothing to do with a fulfilment of the requirements of the narcotics laws. 2 The-statute has no such meaning. Yee Hem v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 178, 45 S.Ct. 470, 69 L.Ed. 904; United States v. Moe Liss, 2 Cir., 1939, 105 F.2d 144; United States v. Feinberg, 7 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 425, cert. den. 315 U.S. 801, 62 S.Ct. 626, 86 L.Ed. 1201.

Judgment will be entered affirming; the judgment of the District Court.