Appellants, convicted of smuggling amphetamine tablets into the United States, list nine instances in which their appointed trial counsel might have acted otherwise than he did. They conclude that they did not have adequate assistance of counsel or a fair trial and that the District Court erred in not acting sua sponte on their behalf. We fail to see how action by trial counsel in any of these instances could have resulted in a favorable ruling or otherwise altered the result in appellants’ favor. The cumulation adds neither weight nor substance. *111 Nor do we think the district judge should on his own motion have granted a judgment of acquittal on behalf of either appellant.

Affirmed.