Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

234 F.2d 956

Docket No. 7176.

Olson v. United States

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 5, 1956.

Decided June 18, 1956.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-06-18

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1965

10 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense for which conviction was had.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Thompson

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

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

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1956-06-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*957No attorney for appellant.

¶2William I. Ward, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Statesville, N. C. (J. M. Baley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Marshall, N. C., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and MOORE, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from an order denying a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside and vacate a sentence. Appellant was charged with the interstate transportation of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. He was represented by counsel and, after waiving indictment, entered a plea of guilty to the charges against him as set forth in an information. He contends in the motion to vacate that the checks as to which forgery and transportation were charged were in an amount less than $5,000; but that amount is not required with respect to forged securities the transportation of which is made criminal by the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, under which the charges were drawn. Caldwell v. United States, 8 Cir., 160 F.2d 371. The counts of the information substantially charge the offense denounced by the statute; and the law is well settled that, where the sufficiency of the charge is not questioned on the trial, it will not be held insufficient on a motion to vacate the sentence unless it is so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense for which conviction has been had. Aaron v. United States, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 446; Dickerson v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 440; Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 867; Lucas v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 865. There is no merit in the contention that the trial judge should not have received evidence of and considered appellant’s prior criminal record in passing sentence.

¶6Affirmed.

/234/f2d/956 · .json · Public domain