Opinion ID: 327931
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Availability of Collateral Relief

Text: 14 In Davis v. United States, supra, the Supreme Court recognized that a petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 need not allege a constitutional violation to challenge his sentence successfully. 417 U.S. at 342-346, 94 S.Ct. 2298. Thus in accord with the language of Section 2255, a claim is cognizable thereunder if grounded in the laws, as well as in the Constitution, of the United States. 3 The opinion in Davis is careful to note that not every asserted error of law is cognizable under Section 2255, 417 U.S. at 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298. Referring to Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417, the Court stated in Davis: 15 We suggested (in Hill ) that the appropriate inquiry was whether the claimed error of law was 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,' and whether '(i)t    present(s) exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.'    The Court did not suggest that any line could be drawn on the basis of whether the claim had its source in the Constitution or in the 'laws of the United States.' 16 In this case, the petitioner's contention is that the decision in Gutknecht v. United States (396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532), as interpreted and applied by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in (United States v. Fox, 454 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1971)) after his conviction was affirmed, establishes that his induction order was invalid under the Selective Service Act and that he could not be lawfully convicted for failure to comply with that order. If this contention is well taken, then Davis' conviction and punishment are for an act that the law does not make criminal. There can be no room for doubt that such a circumstance 'inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice' and 'present(s) exceptional circumstances' that justify collateral relief under § 2255. Therefore, although we express no view on the merits of the petitioner's claim, we hold that the issue he raises is cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding. (Emphasis added, 417 U.S. at 346-347, 94 S.Ct. at 2305.) 17 Since we agree with the Government and petitioner that the mailings proved at trial were not sufficiently closely related to the purpose of the scheme to constitute a violation of Section 1341 under Maze, 4 petitioner's conviction and punishment are for an act that the (federal) law does not make criminal. Therefore, there can be no room for doubt that Travers is correct in holding Section 2255 applicable to a situation like that of the petitioner. 5 Accordingly, the district court must be instructed to grant the petition with respect to the counts involving Section 1341. 6