Mrozik

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with entering the State Bank of Sargeant, Minnesota, having its deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, “with intent then and there * * * to commit larceny in said bank.”

The indictment charged the offense in the language of § 588b(a) of Title 12 U.S.C.A. ( 50 Stat. 749 ), a statute covering the crime of felonious entry into a bank so insured.

Appellee relies on no more than our decision in Audett v. United States, 142 F.2d 739, 740 , which appellee describes as sustaining an indictment in the same language as that here under attack. This is not a correct statement. “The Audett” indictment described the intended larceny as “to steal, take, and carry away money belonging to and in the custody of the State Bank * * *”

It is obvious that appellant’s indictment covered a much wider field of larcenous intent than that in the Audett case. Here it would cover the intended larceny by a pickpocket who had followed the temptingly exposed silk handkerchief emerging from the pocket of a depositor just entering — that is of…