. Appellant contended that: 1) the evidence was insufficient for the jury to have inferred the existence of an unlawful agreement; 2) there was improper venue and a lack of jurisdiction; 3) the charge did not sufficiently instruct the jury to consider each defendant separately; and 4) a preliminary instruction to the jury that once there is some evidence of conspiracy, hearsay of co-conspirators may be admissible, amounted to an instruction, as a matter of law, that there was evidence of a conspiracy. We have considered all these specifications of error and find them to be without merit.

. See NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 430 F.2d 966 (5 Cir. 1970).