United States v. Watkins, 254
| Decision Date | 03 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 254,Docket 20965.,254 |
| Citation | 167 F.2d 659 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. EICHENLAUB v. WATKINS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Harold K. McKee, of New York City, for appellant.
John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of New York, of New York City (John F. Ryan, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before SWAN, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Relator contends that 22 U.S.C.A. § 233 was repealed and that therefore he was not convicted of any crime enumerated in 8 U.S.C.A. § 157. We cannot agree; the 1940 Act did not repeal but merely increased the penalty prescribed in 22 U.S. C.A. § 233.3 Nor do we agree with his contention that 8 U.S.C.A. § 157 does not include one who was a citizen when convicted but who is subsequently denaturalized. We think the decree of denaturalization relates back, at least for this purpose. Cf. Rosenberg v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 475.
He also urges that the deportation warrant is defective, as not in accord with 8 U.S.C.A. § 157, since it states that he is "a member of the undesirable classes of alien residents enumerated in said Act" and does not state that he, as an individual, has been found to be an "undesirable resident." He cites Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S.Ct. 283, 68 L.Ed. 549. But there the Court said (page 43 of 264 U.S., page 287 of 44 S.Ct.) that the defect in the warrants had not been met by other matter in the record. Here we have an explicit finding in the administrative proceedings that relator "is an undesirable resident." It would serve no useful purpose to remand to permit amendment of the warrant to conform to that finding.
Affirmed.
3 If he means to contend that the indictment was insufficient, the contention is frivolous. As the court in the criminal suit had jurisdiction of both his person and the subject matter, he cannot in a habeas corpus proceedings, attack the conviction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Costello v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...in the denaturalization cases could properly be related to the task of construing a deportation statute. United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 167 F.2d 659; United States ex rel. Willumeit v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 171 F.2d 773. And when those cases came here, this Court pointedly ......
-
United States Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy United States Willumeit v. Shaughnessy v. 15 8212 16, 1949
...named. After hearing, the writ was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 167 F.2d 659. We denied certiorari. 335 U.S. 867, 69 S.Ct. 137. However, when the Court of Appeals affirmed the Willumeit case, now before us, on the aut......
-
United States v. Eichenlaub, 157
...1920, 8 U.S.C.A. § 157, permitted deportation only of aliens and not of citizens who had been denaturalized. United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 167 F.2d 659. After the denial of his petition for certiorari, 335 U.S. 867, 69 S.Ct. 137, and then the granting of it, 337 U.S. ......
-
United States v. Watkins, 213
...U.S.C.A. § 34 he was a naturalized citizen. This is precisely the same situation as this court passed upon in United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 167 F.2d 659, and in that case certiorari was denied, 69 S.Ct. 137. The appellant asks us to reconsider the Eichenlaub decision ......