The current section 32, point (e), which deals with the possibility of a defendant withdrawing a conviction, has been deferred to section 11, period (e). Therefore, the amendment to Rule 32 D is, at best, minor in determining how applications are decided after the withdrawal of the grounds. It avoids the confusion that ensues as to whether a petition 2255 a 32 d application and, if so, whether it depends essentially on how the case is to be decided. See z.B. United States v. Watson, supra. It also avoids the current undesirable situation, in which the mere selection of one of the two very similar remedies, Rule 32 (d) or 2255, can have significant procedural consequences, for example. B if the government can appeal the unfavorable decision of the district court (only after 2255). Given that provisions 2255 and section 32, point (d), which is rightly referred to as “two main procedures for the belateral attack of a federal conviction,” Borman, The Hidden Right to Direct Appeal from a Federal Conviction, 64 Cornell L.Rev. 319, 327 (1979), this amendment is also consistent with the proposal of the Supreme Court`s decision in the United States and Timmreck, which above, namely that “the concern for purpose, which is served by the limitation of collateral attack, has particular vigour with respect to convictions on the basis of convictions.” The amendment is also consistent with the ALI code of early conviction procedure 350.9 (1975) (“Allegations of non-compliance with Section 350 procedures do not provide a basis for reviewing a conviction at the end of the appeal period for such a conviction, unless such a revision is required by the U.S. Constitution or that state or by other means by the law of that state , with the exception of section 350); ABA standards for the management of criminal justice No. 14-2.1 (2 fortnight 1978) (using the “Manifesto-injustice” standard, with six specific illustrations, each of which would provide a discharge base in accordance with .2255); Unif.R.Crim.P.
444 (e) (Approved Draft, 1974) (with “interest of justice” test, but with five specific illustrations, each of which would be the basis of discharge after .2255).