The appellant in this habeas corpus case here complains of the Utah Statute, U.C.A.1953, 76-38-1, which permits an inference of guilt of larceny when an accused is found in “possession of property recently stolen” when the person in possession fails to make a satisfactory explanation. The charge of the state trial court here adequately met the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed.2d 210.

The judgment is affirmed.