Winhoven

This is an appeal 'from an order dismissing Winhoven’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. The application alleged that in his trial on an indictment charging a violation of Section 320 of 18 U.S.C. in the robbery of one H. C. McCloy, a postal clerk, he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. The district court issued an order to show cause and heard and decided the application on the merits of this contention, holding that Winhoven had not been denied such assistance of counsel.

Winhoven seeks our consideration of the appeal on the merits of the contention: that he did not have the effective assistance of counsel. This we cannot do because it appears that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the application for the writ.

Section 2255 of 28 U.S.C. provides in its-last sentence that if a federal prisoner moves under that section to vacate the sentence under which he is held, in which motion he may have effective and adequate relief, and is denied that relief, he cannot, thereafter apply for a writ of habeas corpus. “An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who…