therefore cannot be grounds for relief under Section 2255.
As to (6), that Petitioner was not ably defended as counsel was not of his own choosing, the Court, in view of the fact that Petitioner was without counsel, appointed competent counsel for the Petitioner; and mere allegations of incompetence or inefficiency of counsel will not ordinarily suffice as grounds for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or granting of a petition to set aside a judgment of conviction and sentence. United States v. Wight, 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 376, 379. This Court is of the opinion that Petitioner received the conscientious service of a competent counsel.
As to (7), that Petitioner was not informed of the indictment, it was pointed out above that the record shows that he was arraigned in open court and notified of the charges being brought against him. Even if the Petitioner did not receive a copy of the indictment, that affords no ground for relief, as there is no obligation on the part of the Government to furnish copies of indictments to defendants in other than capital cases. United States v. Van Duzee, 1890, 140 U.S. 169, 173, 11 S. Ct. 758, 35 L. Ed. 399.
as to (8), that Petitioner was not notified in advance of trial date, this also affords no ground for relief under Section 2255. Petitioner or his counsel, at the time of the trial, should have requested the Court to postpone the trial, if more time was required to prepare a defense. Such a request was not made to the Court.
As to (9), that Petitioner was put on trial after having only 5 minutes to talk to his counsel, this too does not afford a basis of relief. The time consumed in oral discussion and legal research is not the crucial test of the effectiveness of the assistance of counsel, for the amount of time and effort of preparation required to provide effective representation will vary with the nature of the charge, counsel's familiarity with the law applicable and the facts. Each case must be examined individually. United States v. Wight, supra. Here, despite the shortness of the time which Petitioner spent with counsel before the trial, there is shown no lack of knowledge by counsel of either the facts or the law upon which counsel advised and defended his client.
As to 10), that a confession was illegally introduced at the trial, it is well established that erroneous admission of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal case must be urged upon appeal and cannot ordinarily form the basis of a collateral attack. It is only when the substance of a fair trial has been denied that errors in the course of a trial will be corrected even though such errors relate to constitutional rights. United States v. Kranz, supra. Such is not the case here.
as to (11), that the indictment was insufficient, it has been held that the sufficiency of the indictment cannot be reviewed in habeas corpus proceedings, or under Section 2255. United States ex rel. Gallivan v. Hill, 3 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 840; United States v. Kranz, supra.
In view of the foregoing, the grounds alleged are insufficient to warrant a hearing under Section 2255. As further evidence of the fact that this Petitioner received a fair and impartial trial, I, the trial Judge, endorsed the judgment and commitment papers, which are part of the record, with the following statement: 'This defendant had a fair trial and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty on both counts of the indictment. The records show that for the past 21 years this defendant has been an enemy of society and an undesirable citizen and a menace to society and cannot be trusted, spending most of that period in jails or penitentiaries for repeated and serious violations of the law'.
This Court finds from an examination of the motion and the record that this Court had jurisdiction to render the judgment of conviction; that the sentence imposed was authorized by law; that the sentence is not otherwise open to collateral attack; and that there has not been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack. The motion and files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief and hence a hearing would serve no useful purpose. An appropriate order will be filed herewith.