UNITED STATES EX REL. EICHENLAUB
v.
WATKINS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the relator's conviction under a repealed statute did not invalidate his denaturalization and that the deportation warrant was sufficient. The court also held that the sufficiency of the indictment could not be attacked in a habeas corpus proceeding.
The relator contended that a statute under which he was convicted was repealed, and that he was therefore not subject to denaturalization. He also arg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Denaturalization cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
Relator contends that 22 U.S.C.A. § 233 was repealed and that therefore he was not convicted of any crime enumerated in 8 U.S.C.A. § 157.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.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1950)
-
Costello v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 376 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1964)
-
United States ex rel. Willumeit v. Watkins, 171 F.2d 773 (2d Cir. 1949)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1924)
- Rosenberg v. United States, 60 F.2d 475 (3d Cir. 1932)