22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T45c,Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , appellant moved to vacate and set aside judgment of conviction. His motion was denied without hearing by the District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, and he has taken this appeal. His grounds for relief as alleged in his moving papers are as follows: Appellant in his moving papers also states that he acquainted both the triaj court and trial counsel with his view “that plain errors and harmful prejudice permeated his jury trial.” He has not, however, beyond this conclusory statement disclosed to the Court below the nature of the error and prejudice which by appeal he proposed to correct. The statement itself does not amount to an allegation that specific error had been committed. Rivera v. United States (9 Cir. 1963) 318 F.2d 606, 608 . There was no way in which the District Court could determine the existence of prejudice or judge the substantiality of appellant’s claim. Under these circumstances appellant is not entitled to a hearing under § 2255. Wilson v. United States (9 Cir. 1964) 338 F.2d 54 [1964], Judgment affirmed.24:T477,

Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , appellant moved to vacate and set aside judgment of conviction. His motion was denied without hearing by the District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, and he has taken this appeal.

His grounds for relief as alleged in his moving papers are as follows:

Appellant in his moving papers also states that he acquainted both the triaj court and trial counsel with his view “that plain errors and harmful prejudice permeated his jury trial.” He has not, however, beyond this conclusory statement disclosed to the Court below the nature of the error and prejudice which by appeal he proposed to correct. The statement itself does not amount to an allegation that specific error had been committed. Rivera v. United States (9 Cir. 1963) 318 F.2d 606, 608 . There was no way in which the District Court could determine the existence of prejudice or judge the substantiality of appellant’s claim.

Under these circumstances appellant is not entitled to a hearing under § 2255. Wilson v. United States (9 Cir. 1964) 338 F.2d 54 [1964],

Judgment affirmed.