O'Leary v. U.S., No. 88-1133
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and WOLLMAN; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 856 F.2d 1142 |
| Parties | Harold Edwin O'LEARY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1133 |
| Decision Date | 13 September 1988 |
Page 1142
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 13, 1988.
Harold Edwin O'Leary, Springfield, Mo., for appellant.
Kathianne Knaup Crane, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Harold E. O'Leary appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. O'Leary pleaded guilty to mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and now challenges the sufficiency of the underlying indictment. We affirm.
O'Leary's activities as the assistant controller of Southern Comfort Corporation led a federal grand jury to indict him on eight counts of federal mail fraud. The indictment stated that O'Leary defrauded Southern Comfort of over $905,000 and its right to loyal, faithful, and honest service by its employees. Further, the indictment described a scheme in which O'Leary, acting without authorization, used the mail to deposit Southern Comfort corporate funds into a subsidiary's account. O'Leary then transferred the funds from that account to his personal account. At the plea hearing, O'Leary admitted he had done the acts recited in the indictment as part of the scheme to defraud Southern Comfort of its money. The district court sentenced O'Leary, and O'Leary later filed this section 2255 motion.
In pleading guilty, a defendant admits all of the factual allegations made in the indictment. United States v. DiFonzo, 603 F.2d 1260, 1263 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1018, 100 S.Ct. 672, 62 L.Ed.2d 648 (1980); see Parrott v. Brewer, 421 F.2d 1386, 1388 (8th Cir.1970) (per curiam). A defendant pleading guilty also waives all challenges that do not relate to jurisdiction. Camp v. United States, 587 F.2d 397, 399 (8th Cir.1978); accord Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987). In order to establish a jurisdictional defect, O'Leary must show that the indictment on its face fails to state an offense. See DiFonzo, 603 F.2d at 1263. He has failed to do so. The indictment clearly specified that using the mail to deposit corporate funds into the subsidiary account was a necessary part of O'Leary's scheme.
In addition, McNally v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), does not provide a basis for overturning O'Leary's conviction....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fireman v. U.S., Civil Action No. 97-12305-WGY.
...had no original subject matter jurisdiction. See Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1880); O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir.1988). Fireman may raise this jurisdictional defect in a section 2255 motion, even when this claim was not raised on direct ap......
-
U.S. v. Welch, No. 01-4170.
...render the mail and wire fraud counts themselves insufficient so long as one theory remains viable. See, e.g., O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir. 27. In Scheidler, the Supreme Court held abortion opponents seeking to "shut down" abortion clinics did not commit extortion......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB.
...type of jurisdictional defect occurs when `the indictment on its face fails to state an offense.'") (quoting O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 902, 117 S.Ct. 256, 136 L.Ed.2d 182 (1996). Thus, Johnson has made challenges to the sufficiency......
-
Whitepipe v. Weber, No. CIV 06-3018.
...should have been suppressed and that the prosecutor committed a Brady violation were waived by his guilty plea. O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir.1988) (a defendant who pleads guilty "waives all challenges that do not relate to jurisdiction"). Both claims were either ab......
-
Fireman v. U.S., Civil Action No. 97-12305-WGY.
...had no original subject matter jurisdiction. See Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376-77, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1880); O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir.1988). Fireman may raise this jurisdictional defect in a section 2255 motion, even when this claim was not raised on direct ap......
-
U.S. v. Welch, No. 01-4170.
...render the mail and wire fraud counts themselves insufficient so long as one theory remains viable. See, e.g., O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir. 27. In Scheidler, the Supreme Court held abortion opponents seeking to "shut down" abortion clinics did not commit extortion......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB.
...type of jurisdictional defect occurs when `the indictment on its face fails to state an offense.'") (quoting O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir.1988)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 902, 117 S.Ct. 256, 136 L.Ed.2d 182 (1996). Thus, Johnson has made challenges to the sufficiency......
-
Whitepipe v. Weber, No. CIV 06-3018.
...should have been suppressed and that the prosecutor committed a Brady violation were waived by his guilty plea. O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir.1988) (a defendant who pleads guilty "waives all challenges that do not relate to jurisdiction"). Both claims were either ab......