Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

188 F.2d 446

Docket No. 6228.

Aaron v. United States

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued March 12, 1951.

Decided March 30, 1951.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 4,1951.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-03-30

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 1967 · most notably United States v. Thompson (1965), Finn v. United States (1958)

24 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ * * * the law is that an indictment, the sufficiency of which is not questioned on the trial, will not be held insufficient on a motion to vacate the judgment entered thereon unless it is so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense for which conviction was had. (Citing cases.)” ■”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Klein v. United States, United States v. Thompson

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Pifer v. United States · Lucas v. United States · Dickerson v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1951-03-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See 71 S.Ct. 1006.

¶2*447Edgar Drewry Aaron, pro se.

¶3Theodore C. Bethea, Asst. U. S. Atty., Reidsville, N. C. (Bryce R. Holt, U. S. Atty., Greensboro, N. C., on brief), for appellee.

¶4Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SO-PER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This is an appeal from an order denying a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate a judgment and sentence of imprisonment. Appellant, represented by an experienced attorney appointed by the court, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging violations of the Lindbergh Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201, and the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. The only question raised by this appeal is the sufficiency of the indictment, which charged transportation “from Greensboro, North Carolina, to near Martinsville, state of Virginia”, the contention being that the crossing of the state line was not charged. The contention is clearly without merit. The sufficiency of the indictment was not questioned at the trial; and, as said by this court in Dickerson v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 440: “ … the law is that an indictment, the sufficiency of which is not questioned on- the trial, will not be held insufficient on a motion to vacate the judgment entered thereon unless it is so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense for which conviction was had. Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 867; Lucas v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 865.”

¶7Affirmed.

/188/f2d/446 · .json · Public domain