Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02412/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02412-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael D. Hatcher
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Temh Cir8.1: ~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB ~ 1S90 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL D. HATCHER, 

Movant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2412 

(D.C. No. 88-3150) 

( D. Kan.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SETH and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2412 Document: 01019962916 Date Filed: 02/02/1990 Page: 1 
Michael D. Hatcher appeals from the District Court's 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his motion Hatcher 

alleged that (1) the superseding indictment was defective for the 

reason that on the date of the robbery of the credit union, it 

ceased to exist as a separate entity and became part of another 

credit union; (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient 

regarding proof of the federally insured status of the credit 

union; and (3) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction 

because the indictment alleged that the ''deposits" of the credit 

union were insured rather than using the statutory language of 

"accounts." The trial court issued a Memorandum and Order 

rejecting each of the appellant's claims. We note additionally 

that we have held that an indictment need not follow the technical 

phraseology about insurance of deposits or accounts where the 

substance of the offense is charged such as by alleging that the 

bank was an insured F.D.I.C. member. See Kienlen v. United 

States, 379 F.2d 20, 22-23 (10th Cir. 1967). 

For substantially the reasons as were stated by the District 

Court, the judgment is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

William J. Holloway, Jr. 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2412 Document: 01019962916 Date Filed: 02/02/1990 Page: 2