The district court, in its memorandum and order denying relief, noted that the government admitted it had made a typographical error in preparing Count I and that Count I should have charged Weisser with the fraudulent use of a BankAmericard credit card, not a Standard Oil credit card, belonging to the individual correctly named in the charge, one Lawrence A. Hubbart.5

The court found upon a complete review of the proceedings that the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 had been met. Special emphasis was placed by the court upon the existence and use of a transcribed conversation, obtained by wiretap, between Weisser and Anthony Daly regarding the use of the BankAmericard belonging to Hubbart. The court noted that this particular transcript was "made a part of the record" and "had been extensively studied in pretrial meetings." In fact, the court noted that at the time the plea was accepted on Count I, Weisser refreshed his memory as to the alleged crime by referring to that transcript. Based upon this record, the district court found that no need for an evidentiary hearing existed and that no relief was warranted. We agree.

In McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 22 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1969), the Supreme Court announced the proper guidelines for federal courts to follow when accepting a guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11. Essentially, the Court held that compliance with the rule required that (1) the defendant be personally addressed by the court, (2) the court determine that the plea is made voluntarily, (3) the court determine that the plea is taken with full understanding by the defendant of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea, and (4) the court must satisfy itself that a factual basis for the plea exists. Id. at 466-67, 89 S.Ct. at 1170-1171, 22 L. Ed. 2d at 425-426. See also United States v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 516 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Untiedt, 479 F.2d 1265 (8th Cir. 1973). On this appeal, Weisser contends that no factual basis existed for the acceptance of his guilty plea to Count I. Our review of the record convinces us to the contrary. See United States v. Briscoe, 428 F.2d 954, 956-57 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 966, 91 S. Ct. 378, 27 L. Ed. 2d 386 (1970).

Before accepting Weisser's pleas the court carefully examined him at some length regarding his participation in the scheme, his understanding of the charges and the possible penalties, the nature and extent of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, and the voluntariness of his action. Weisser had specific recollection of the incident which formed the basis of Count II and he related to the court his involvement therein. However, Weisser was initially confused as to the charge in Count I. His memory as to the incident charged therein was refreshed when the government produced and he was shown the wiretap transcript of his conversation with Daly. That transcription clearly and unequivocally shows that appellant provided Daly with information regarding a BankAmericard credit card, number 4232-170-165-976, which was issued in the name of one Lawrence A. Hubbart. No possible reading of that conversation could suggest to the contrary. After reviewing this transcript in open court and in the presence of his counsel, Weisser apprised the court he was aware of the conduct to which he was admitting guilt. At no time has Weisser challenged the fact of this conversation with Daly nor has he attempted to deny his involvement with regard to the Hubbart BankAmericard.

It is our view that the trial court in this case ably discharged its Rule 11 responsibilities. A plea entered after full compliance with Rule 11 is conclusive and waives all nonjurisdictional errors. Tucker v. United States, 470 F.2d 220, 221-22 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 929, 93 S. Ct. 2758, 37 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1973). See Coleman v. Burnett, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 302, 477 F.2d 1187, 1193-95 (1973). The error in Count I of the information was non-prejudicial to the defendant, a minor and technical deficiency which cannot be used to attack an otherwise valid plea. See Willis v. United States, 289 F.2d 581, 584-85 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 856, 82 S. Ct. 93, 7 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1961); Harris v. United States, 288 F.2d 790, 792-93 (8th Cir. 1961). Cf. United States v. Word, 519 F.2d 612, 617 (8th Cir. 1975). In addition, Weisser's fears that he could be re-prosecuted for the Hubbart BankAmericard offense are unfounded. The wiretap transcript, which was made part of the plea record, clearly and specifically indicates that the plea as to Count I was made to the fraudulent use of that BankAmericard. See Harris v. United States, 288 F.2d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 1961).

We conclude that the full record in this case amply supports a finding that appellant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to the charge that he fraudulently used the Hubbart BankAmericard. The transcript of his telephone call with Daly coupled with Weisser's colloquy with the trial court provided an ample factual basis for the acceptance of that plea.6

Affirmed.

WEBSTER, Circuit Judge (concurring).

I concur in the result. I adhere to my view, previously expressed in Sappington v. United States, 523 F.2d 858 (8th Cir. 1975) (Webster, J., concurring), that post-conviction claims which are based upon failure to comply with Rule 11 should be limited to those situations in which "the claimed error of law was 'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice,' and * * * '(i)t * * * present(s) exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.' " Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S. Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L. Ed. 2d 109, 119 (1974) (quoting from Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S. Ct. 468, 471, 7 L. Ed. 2d 417, 421 (1962)). See Houser v. United States, 508 F.2d 509, 512-13 (8th Cir. 1974). This is not such a case.