Anthony Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Anthony Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“if the indictment alleges all of the statutory elements of a federal offense and the defendant's contention is that in fact certain of those elements are lacking, the challenge goes to the merits of the prosecution, not to the jurisdiction of the court. . . .”
160 citation events (108 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sprull v. United States (nysd, 2021-04-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 42 U.S.C. § 254c cited 1× in this case · 17 total citations of statute #1 42 U.S.C. § 1395-96 cited 1× in this case · 6 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Sprull v. United States (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
S.D.N.Y. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
if the indictment alleges all of the statutory elements of a federal offense and the defendant's contention is that in fact certain of those elements are lacking, the challenge goes to the merits of the prosecution, not to the jurisdiction of the court. . . .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Panos
2d Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Indeed, “[i]t is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and . . . waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Batiz v. United States
D. Conn. · 2023 · confidence medium
And “after a judgment of conviction has been entered upon the defendant’s plea of guilty, the defendant may not raise nonjurisdictional challenges either on direct appeal, or by collateral attack under § 2255.” Hayle v. U.S., 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Masud Al Safarini
D.D.C. · 2021 · confidence medium
Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Santelises, 476 F.2d 787, 788 (2d Cir. 1973) (coram nobis attack on guilty plea based on alleged failure of indictment to allege violations of federal law must be rejected “‘unless [the indictment] is so defective that it does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted’”) (quoting United States v. Trollinger, 415 F.2d 527, 528 (5th Cir. 1969))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Turane v. United States
D. Vt. · 2021 · confidence medium
(Id. at 1-2.) However, as the R&R correctly concludes, Turane’s claims and objections are barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (f)(1) (setting a 1-year period of limitations on motions under the section), waiver, see Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (“[A] defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court's jurisdiction.” (internal citations omitted)), and procedural d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sumlin v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · confidence medium
The Court Did Not Lack Subject-Matter Jurisdiction “To challenge the court’s jurisdiction, ‘the defendant who has pleaded guilty must establish that the face of the indictment discloses that the count or counts to which he pleaded guilty failed to charge a federal offense.’” United States v. Kumar, 617 F.3d 612, 620 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whitley v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court in Rehaif held that the word “knowingly” in § 924(a)(2) “applies both to the defendant’s conduct and to the defendant’s status,” 139 S. Ct. at 2194 , but “express[ed] no view . . . about what precisely the Government must prove to establish a defendant’s knowledge of status,” id. at 2200 . 2 offense’”) (quoting Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Balde
2d Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
The effort to characterize the argument as 31 jurisdictional is important because, as we have explained, a “defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” United States v. Yousef, 750 F.3d 254, 258 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987)) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kotlyarsky v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · confidence medium
Discussion Legal Standard Relief under Section 2255 is appropriate if the movant can show, among other things, that his “sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,” or “that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law.” Effect of Interstate Commerce Subject Matter Jurisdiction Kotlyarsky argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because there was no connection between the alleged act of extortion and interstate commerce.”* “In order to sustain a challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction, th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Harris
2d Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
The Sufficiency of the Information “In order to sustain a challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction, the defendant who has pleaded guilty must establish that the face'of the [charging instrument] discloses that the count or counts to which he pleaded guilty failed to charge a federal offense.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Benita Dinkins-Robinson
4th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Gill, 193 F.3d 802, 804 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Littriello, 866 F.2d 713, 714-15 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Reynolds, 919 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1990); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Von Stephens, 774 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); United States v. Smith, 596 F.2d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Calvin Morgan
6th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Generally, a valid guilty plea “bars any subsequent non-jurisdictional attack on the conviction.” United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 932 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Pickett, 941 F.2d 411, 416 (6th Cir.1991)). “[I]n the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, [a defendant pleading guilty] waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Pickett, 941 F.2d at 416 (citing Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Yousef (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
In the instant appeal, Yousef again asserts that the government failed to allege the requisite territorial nexus, asking us to vacate his conviction and sentence and to dismiss the indictment. 5 DISCUSSION We have held that ʺ[i]n order to apply extraterritorially a federal criminal statute to a defendant consistently with due process, there must be a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the United States, so that such application would not be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.ʺ United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 118 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Yousef (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” 2 Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Preston
2d Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987); see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) (“With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hsu
2d Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Guilty Plea: Statute of Limitations In a supplemental pro se brief not endorsed by his appellate counsel, Hsu contests his conviction on Counts One and Six, the charges relating to the 2000 transaction, arguing that the statute of limitations had run on those counts and that he therefore could not plead guilty to them. 2 However, “[i]t is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those go *118 ing to the court…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dodd (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Fitzgerald, 466 F.2d 377, 379 (D.C.Cir.1972) (“a voluntary plea of guilty waives all rights and defenses, known and unknown, past or future”); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2nd Cir.1987) (by pleading guilty, defendant waives all non-jurisdictional challenges to the prosecution and defects in the prior proceeding).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gjuraj (Simms)
2d Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The alleged jurisdictional defect must “go to the court’s power to entertain the prosecution,” not to “the government’s ability to prove its case.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 882 (2d Cir.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ingram
2d Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
United States v. Lasaga, 328 F.3d 61, 64 (2d Cir.2003); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kumar (4×)
2d Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
To challenge the court's jurisdiction, "the defendant who has pleaded guilty must establish that the face of the indictment discloses that the count or counts to which he pleaded guilty failed to charge a federal offense." Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ned Martin
6th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
A defendant may enter a conditional guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), which allows him to “reservfe] in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pre-trial motion.” Rule 11(a)(2) imposes an “affirmative duty on the defendant to preserve all potential collateral challenges through the preservation mechanism.” Pickett, 941 F.2d at 416 (emphasis in original). “[I]n the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal,” a defendant “waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Schaffer
6th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Pickett, 941 F.2d at 416 . “[I]n the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, [a defendant pleading guilty] waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gabriel Schaffer
6th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Pickett, 941 F.2d at 416 . “[I]n the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, [a defendant pleading guilty] waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987)). 1 It does not appear that the United States responded to either motion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. v. Black
Del. Ch. · 2008 · confidence medium
See United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 402 F.3d 294, 298 (1st Cir.2005) ("Although a guilty plea waives most claims of error, it does not preclude an attack on the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea itself.”); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987) ("It is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.”) (internal citation omitted); see also 21 Am.Jur.2d Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marcucilli
2d Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
We find that the instruction improperly took out of the hands of the jury the factual issue of whether the United States exercised “sufficient supervision and control” over the funds to support the allegation that they were “moneys of the United States.” See Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 882 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Martin
6th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
The provision places an “affirmative duty on the defendant to preserve all potential collateral challenges through the preservation mechanism of Rule 11(a)(2).” Pickett, supra, 941 F.2d at 416 . “[I]n the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, [a defendant pleading guilty] waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2nd Cir. 1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Martin
6th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
However, under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), a defendant may, with the approval of the court and consent from the government, enter a conditional guilty plea “reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pre-trial motion.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). 2 The provision places an “affirmative duty on the defendant to preserve all potential collateral challenges through the preservation mechanism of Rule 11(a)(2).” Pickett, supra, 941 F.2d at 416 . “[I]n the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, [a defendant pleadin…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Green
8th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See United States v. Pemberton, 405 F.3d 656 , 659 (8th Cir.2005); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881-82 (2d Cir.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Green
8th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See United States v. Pemberton, 405 F.3d 656 , 659 (8th Cir. 2005); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881-82 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rammelkamp (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 881-82 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwamborn v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 2007 · confidence medium
As this Court noted in its June 20 Order, " ‘[i]t is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.’ ” 492 F.Supp.2d at 166 (quoting Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987) (citations omitted); citing United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715, 718-19 (2d Cir.1965) (Friendly, J.) ("An unqualified plea of guilty, legitimately obtained and still in force, bars …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwamborn v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 2007 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715, 718-719 (2d Cir.1965) (Friendly, J.) (“An unqualified plea of guilty, legitimately obtained and still in force, bars further consideration of all but the most fundamental premises for the conv…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Morales
2d Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987); Lebowitz v. United States, 877 F.2d 207, 209 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Albanese v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Panuccio v. Kelly, 927 F.2d at 109 (rejecting claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to inform defendant of possible defense because defense would not likely have succeeded at trial and because plea substantially reduced defendant’s sentencing exposure); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 882 (2d Cir.1987) (rejecting defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to inform him that one count of indictment did not charge a federal offense; plea permitted defendant to have 62 counts of indictment dismissed); Mitchell v. Scully, 746 F…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Schoenfeld
2d Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 , 109 S.Ct. 757 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Antonio Lasaga
2d Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513, 1528 (2d Cir.1997); United States v. Coffin, 76 F.3d 494, 496 (2d Cir.1996); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richards
unknown court · 2002 · confidence medium
Finally, he contests the imposition of a 16-level enhancement at his sentencing pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for illegally reentering after having committed an “aggravated felony” (his Connecticut drug possession offense). 10 “It is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richards
unknown court · 2002 · confidence medium
Finally, he contests the imposition of a 16-level enhancement at his sentencing pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for illegally reentering after having committed an "aggravated felony" (his Connecticut drug possession offense). 10 49 "It is well settled that a defendant's plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court's jurisdiction." Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ramirez
unknown court · 2002 · confidence medium
Normally, a knowing and intelligent guilty plea “waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the Court’s jurisdiction.” United States v. White, 237 F.3d 170, 174 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Juan Ramirez, Also Known as \Tony Tko\"
unknown court · 2002 · confidence medium
Normally, a knowing and intelligent guilty plea "waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the Court's jurisdiction." United States v. White, 237 F.3d 170, 174 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. David McKay Brian McKay
2d Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
However, we stated in Hayle v. United States that federal grant money remains money “of the United States” within the meaning of § 641, notwithstanding prior transfer to a local administrator, “so long as the government exercises supervision and control over the funds and their ultimate use.” 815 F.2d 879, 882 (2d Cir.1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Londono-Jimenez
2d Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987) (internal citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Carr
4th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881-82 (2d Cir. 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lent Christopher Carr, II
4th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881-82 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burke v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See United States v. Coffin, 76 F.3d 494, 496 (2d Cir.1996); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Wagner
4th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881-82 (2d Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989) (guilty plea forecloses attack on indictment unless, "on the face of the record," the court had no power to enter the con- viction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pollack v. Hobbs
E.D.N.Y · 2000 · confidence medium
Preliminarily, the court states the obvious principle on which all parties agree: petitioner’s guilty plea “admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge and ... waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bahhur
6th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Under § 2S1.2(a), the base United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (cited in offense level is seventeen.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Adnan Bahhur
6th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Moreover, “in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, [a defendant pleading guilty] waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction.” Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987) (cited in Pickett, 941 F.2d at 416 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brown
10th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
United States v. Eason, 133 F.3d 933 , 1998 WL 8224, at *1 (10th Cir.1998) (unpublished disposition); United States v. Richard, 37 F.3d 1510 , 1994 WL 548964, at *2 (10th Cir.1994) (unpublished disposition); Valencia v. United States, 923 F.2d 917, 921 (1st Cir.1991); Mack v. United States, 853 F.2d 585, 586 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Mathews, 833 F.2d 161, 163-64 (9th Cir.1987); Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881-82 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Hoyland, 264 F.2d 346, 351-53 (7th Cir.1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anthony HAYLE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
643, Docket 86-2315.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 8, 1987.
815 F.2d 879
Anthony Hayle, pro se., Valerie Caproni, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty. for the Eastern Dist. of N.Y., Catherine Palmer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., on the brief), for respondent-appellee.
Kearse, Lumbard, Pratt.
Cited by 107 opinions  |  Published
KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner pro se Anthony Hayle, convicted, after his plea of guilty, on one count of embezzling funds of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (1982), appeals from so much of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Henry Bramwell, Judge, as denied his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1982) to vacate his sentence on the grounds that (a) the conduct that he admitted did not constitute a federal offense, and (b) his plea of guilty resulted from the ineffective assistance of counsel. Hayle[*881] pursues these contentions on appeal. Finding no merit in either, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1983, Hayle was indicted on 17 counts alleging embezzlements and thefts of moneys of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 and 46 counts alleging other offenses. The indictment alleged that at all pertinent times Hayle was chief accountant of the South Brooklyn Health Center (“SBHC”) and had responsibility for and access to SBHC’s bank accounts; that SBHC was a community health center qualified to receive reimbursement from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395-96 (1982) as a provider of services to patients covered by Medicaid and Medicare programs, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 254c (1982) as a grantee of Public Health Service Act (“PHS”) awards; and that SBHC received Medicare funds, Medicaid funds, and PHS grants, all of which were deposited into SBHC’s checking account. Count Twelve of the indictment, to which Hayle pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, incorporated these allegations and further alleged that on October 15, 1982, without authority, Hayle deposited a check for $6,101 drawn on SBHC’s account into his personal account, thereby embezzling moneys of the United States.

Prior to accepting Hayle’s plea, Judge Bramwell questioned Hayle as to its factual basis. Hayle stated that the $6,101 check had been signed in blank by the appropriate person at SBHC; Hayle then typed in the name of another person as payee, forged that person’s endorsement, and deposited the check in Hayle’s personal account. In February 1984, the court entered a judgment of conviction on Count Twelve, sentenced Hayle to five years in prison, and ordered him to make restitution. The other counts of the indictment were dismissed pursuant to the plea bargain.

In December 1985, Hayle moved pursuant to § 2255 for vacation of his sentence on the grounds, inter alia, (1) that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution as he was not charged with a violation of federal law because the funds he drew from SBHC’s account were not moneys that the United States owned or controlled, (2) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not inform him that Count Twelve did not charge him with a violation of federal law, and (3) that the sentencing court lacked authority to order restitution. The district court rejected all of Hayle’s claims except the last. Judgment was entered vacating the order of restitution but denying the motion in all other respects. Hayle appeals from the judgment to the extent that it denied his motion. We find no merit in his appellate contentions.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Alleged Lack of Jurisdiction

It is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits all of the elements of a formal criminal charge, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1170, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, waives all challenges to the prosecution except those going to the court’s jurisdiction, see United States v. Sykes, 697 F.2d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 1983); LaMagna v. United States, 646 F.2d 775, 778 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 898, 102 S.Ct. 399, 70 L.Ed.2d 214 (1981). Thus, after a judgment of conviction has been entered upon the defendant’s plea of guilty, the defendant may not raise nonjurisdictional challenges either on direct appeal, see, e.g., United States v. Sykes, 697 F.2d at 89; United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715, 718 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 843, 86 S.Ct. 89, 15 L.Ed.2d 84 (1965), or by collateral attack under § 2255, see LaMagna v. United States, 646 F.2d at 778.

In order to sustain a challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction, the defendant who has pleaded guilty must establish that the face of the indictment discloses that the count or counts to which he pleaded guilty failed to charge a federal offense.[*882] See id.; United States v. Santelises, 476 F.2d 787, 788 (2d Cir.1973) (coram nobis attack on guilty plea based on alleged failure of indictment to allege violations of federal law must be rejected “ ‘unless [the indictment] is so defective that it does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted’ ”) (quoting United States v. Trollinger, 415 F.2d 527, 528 (5th Cir.1969)); United States v. Smith, 407 F.2d 33, 34 (2d Cir. 1969). The requirement that the alleged jurisdictional defect be apparent from the face of the indictment reflects the line between issues that go to the court’s power to entertain the prosecution and those that go merely to the government’s ability to prove its case. If the indictment alleges all of the statutory elements of a federal offense and the defendant’s contention is that in fact certain of those elements are lacking, the challenge goes to the merits of the prosecution, not to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the case or to punish the defendant if all «of the alleged elements are proven. See LaMagna v. United States, 646 F.2d at 778.

In the present case, we reject Hayle’s characterization of his challenge as one going to the district court’s jurisdiction. Count Twelve of the indictment alleged that federal grant moneys were deposited into SBHC’s bank account; that Hayle caused a check to be drawn on this account, which he deposited without authority into his own personal bank account; and that Hayle thereby embezzled funds of the United States. Hayle’s contention is not that the indictment fails to allege that he stole funds of the United States, but rather that that allegation is not true because, he argues, the funds he stole had ceased to be funds of the United States. This argument, absent the plea of guilty, would have created an issue of fact for trial; but there is no jurisdictional flaw apparent from the face of the indictment. Federal grant money remains “money ... of the United States” within the meaning of § 641 even after being deposited in the” bank account of the grantee, see United States v. Largo, 775 F.2d 1099, 1101 (10th Cir.1985) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 891, 88 L.Ed.2d 925 (1986), and even if commingled with non-federal funds, see United States v. Von Stephens, 774 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); United States v. Gibbs, 704 F.2d 464, 466 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam); United States v. Mitchell, 625 F.2d 158, 160-61 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 402, 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980), so long as the government “exercises supervision and control over the funds and their ultimate use.” United States v. Von Stephens, 774 F.2d at 1413; accord United States v. Bailey, 734 F.2d 296, 300-01 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 931, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 263 (1984); United States v. McIntosh, 655 F.2d 80, 84 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948, 102 S.Ct. 1450, 71 L.Ed.2d 662 (1982).

The question of whether the government exercised sufficient supervision and control over the SBHC funds to support the allegation that the funds embezzled were moneys of the United States would have been a factual issue to be resolved at trial. Such factual issues do not go to the court’s jurisdiction to try the case, and Hayle’s plea of guilty admitted the assertions of the indictment. Accordingly, his plea waived any contention that the government would be unable to prove that the funds embezzled were moneys of the United States, and his § 2255 petition on this ground was properly rejected.

B. The Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Hayle’s contention that his plea of guilty resulted from the ineffective assistance of his counsel need not detain us long since it is premised on the alleged failure of the indictment to allege a federal offense, a premise we have just rejected. We see no other nonfrivolous basis for an assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel. The plea bargain enabled Hayle to plead guilty to one charge — for which there appears to have been ample factual basis — and to have dismissed 62 other counts against him.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Hayle’s arguments on this appeal and have found them[*883] to be without merit. The judgment denying relief under § 2255 is affirmed.