Sidney B. Cohen, A/K/A Arthur Norman Smith v. United States

436 F.2d 586
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 4, 1971
Docket30242
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 586 (Sidney B. Cohen, A/K/A Arthur Norman Smith v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sidney B. Cohen, A/K/A Arthur Norman Smith v. United States, 436 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sidney B. Cohen appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Cohen was convicted upon his plea of nolo contendere on one count of causing the interstate transportation of a counterfeit American Express traveler’s check, knowing the same to be counterfeit, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Four similar counts, and one count alleging a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, were dismissed upon motion of the Government. There was no direct appeal.

Cohen contends that, inasmuch as the record does not indicate that the grand jury which indicted him was shown any evidence that he himself caused the counterfeit traveler’s cheek to be transported interstate, the indictment was so defective as to deprive the District Court of jurisdiction. The argument is without merit. Indictments are not open to challenge merely on the ground that the evidence before the grand jury was inadequate or incompetent. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956).

Cohen further contends that his plea of nolo contendere was involuntary, and that the assistance rendered him by counsel was ineffective. The District Judge examined the transcript of the original proceeding and concluded, without an evidentiary hearing, that there was no substance to Cohen’s allegations. We agree that the records of the case conclusively show that Cohen is entitled to no relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Barrett v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 302 F.2d 151.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
436 F.2d 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidney-b-cohen-aka-arthur-norman-smith-v-united-states-ca5-1971.