Bloombaum v. United States, 6764.

Decision Date05 April 1954
Docket NumberNo. 6764.,6764.
PartiesBLOOMBAUM v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Milton Bloombaum, pro se.

Herbert H. Hubbard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (George Cochran Doub, Baltimore, Md., U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a plea of guilty to an indictment charging appellant with having acquired a quantity of marihuana in violation of law. The indictment charged that appellant "being then and there a transferee of marihuana required to pay the transfer tax imposed by Title 26, Section 2590(a) (2), United States Code, did acquire and otherwise obtain a quantity of Cannabis sativa L., commonly known as marihuana, to wit, twenty-one thousand eight hundred and five (21,805) grains, without having paid the tax on the transfer of said marihuana to him made."

The appellant being represented by counsel of his own choosing voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and was thereupon sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In his motion to vacate the sentence, he contends that he was a user of marihuana, that his only source of supply was through illegitimate channels and that he was not one required to register and pay tax. It is a sufficient answer to this that the indictment expressly charged that appellant was a "transferee of marihuana required to pay the transfer tax" and that he pleaded guilty to the charge, being represented at the time by counsel. He may not, thereafter attack the sentence on the ground that he was not in fact guilty of the charge contained in the indictment, as a voluntary plea of guilty is an admission of guilt and a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. United States v. Sturm, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 413, 416. If he had any defense to the charge he should have presented it at the time, and not by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which lies only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack. Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 194; Crowe v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 799; Birtch v. United States, 4 Cir., 173 F.2d 316, 317. As said in the case last cited:

"It is true of motions made under this section, as we held of motions in the nature of applications for writs of error coram nobis under the prior
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Quillien v. Leeke, Civ. A. No. 69-475.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 5 September 1969
    ...later) generally waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the criminal proceedings preliminary thereto. Bloombaum v. United States (C.C.A.Md. 1954) 211 F.2d 944, 945-946; Sims v. United States (D.C.Md.1966) 272 F. Supp. 577, 587, aff. 382 F.2d 294, cert. denied 390 U.S. 961, 88 S.Ct. 1062, ......
  • Leary v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 30 June 1959
    ...See Berg v. United States, 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 122, 125, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 876, 70 S.Ct. 137, 94 L.Ed. 537; Bloombaum v. United States, 4 Cir., 211 F.2d 944, 945; Lipscomb v. United States, 8 Cir., 209 F.2d 831, 834, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed. 1105; United ......
  • Coleman v. Burnett
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 14 March 1973
    ...86 S.Ct. 89, 15 L.Ed.2d 84 (1965). 20 Id. at 718; United States v. Washington, 237 F.2d 632, 633 (3d Cir.1956); Bloombaum v. United States, 211 F.2d 944, 945 (4th Cir.1954); Fowler v. United States, 391 F.2d 276, 277 (5th Cir.1968); United States v. Parker, 292 F.2d 2, 3 (6th Cir.1961); Uni......
  • State v. Cerny
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 February 1956
    ...27.26, which lie only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack. Barnes v. Hunter, supra; Bloombaum v. United States, 4 Cir., 211 F.2d 944[1-3]; United States v. Walker, D.C., 132 F.Supp. 432, 436[4-7]; United States v. Kaplan, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 7[1, 2]; State v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT