of proving that the plea was not given “voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequence.” Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. at 223, 47 S. Ct. at 583. Bare allegations will not suffice to require an evidentiary hearing. “As a minimum, before proceeding to hold a hearing on such a claim, the district court should require that the defendant submit an affidavit of his attorney in support of his claim or his own affidavit giving a satisfactory explanation of why he cannot submit an affidavit from his attorney, [citation omitted] In any event, the petitioner must categorically waive his privilege regarding any advice he received or any conversation or communication h 437 (10th Cir. 1970). 3 . But see Harris v. United States, 426 F.2d 99, 101 (6th Cir. 1970) (<HOLDING>) . OAKES, Circuit Judge (dissenting): One would
holding that the sanction of deportation is a collateral not direct consequence of a guilty plea holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding that its earlier decision of munich v united states 9th cir 337 f2d 356 1964 which held that failure to inform a defendant of his ineligibility for parole would require vacation of his plea would not be applied retroactively holding that where a defendant pleads guilty or withdraws a guilty plea his attorney must inform him of all of the available options and possible consequences and the failure to do so can fall outside the range of competence required by attorneys in criminal cases holding that ineligibility for parole is a consequence of a guilty plea and suggesting in dicta that for failure to inform a defendant of such ineligibility will require vacation of all guilty pleas taken after april 2 1969 the date of the mccarthy decision