Holding petitioner's initial guilty plea to mail fraud, later vacated by district court at request of petitioner, could not then be put before a jury at trial as evidence of petitioner's guilt
Holding that "it is not necessary ... to state object [of the conspiracy] with the detail which would be required in an indictment for committing the substantive offense"
In Edwards v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 256 F.2d 707, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 847, 79 S.Ct. 74, 3 L.Ed.2d 82 (1958), petitioner complained of the ineffective assistance of counsel who told him that "there is nothing I can do for you" when, in fact, there were things which he allegedly might have done — including moving to suppress an illegally secured confession.
In Parrino, a 1954 decision cited by the Majority, we observed that criminal convictions can carry consequences like deportation that have "terrific impact" but that do not "directly flow[]" from a judgment, and we suggested that defendants have no constitutional right to be apprised by counsel of such collateral consequences before entering a guilty plea, no matter how "surprised" they may be by those consequences.
In Thornton v. United States, 271 U.S. 414, 46 S.Ct. 585, 70 L.Ed. 1013, the Court held that Congress may require the inspection of all cattle in a disease infected area without regard to whether they were to be shipped in interstate commerce.
In Pierce v. Creecy, the Court acknowledged that "an objection which, if well founded, would destroy the sufficiency of the indictment, as a criminal pleading, might conceivably go far enough to destroy also its sufficiency as a charge of crime."
Finding that §1292 gave the appellate machinery "a considerable amount of flexibility" so that "disadvantages of piecemeal and final judgment appeals might both be avoided"
In Friedman v. United States, 200 F.2d 690, 696 (8th Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 926, 73 S.Ct. 784, 97 L.Ed. 1357 (1953), the court held that the question of guilt or innocence was not involved in ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
Stating that Section 2255 "does not give a prisoner the right to obtain a review—first by the court which imposed the sentence and then on appeal from denial of his motion to vacate sentence—of errors of fact or law that must be raised by timely appeal."