United States v. Witmer, 11185.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 11185.,11185. |
| Citation | 213 F.2d 95 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WITMER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Hayden C. Covington, Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.
J. Julius Levy, U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa. (Stephen A. Teller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
This case, like its companion case of United States v. Hagaman, 3 Cir., 213 F.2d 86, which opinion is filed this day, raises two questions. One is the procedural point. This point is exactly like that in the Hagaman case in that the registrant was notified orally, after personal appearance before the local Board, that his classification would not be changed. He was not given a written notice. But he did have knowledge of the Board's action and he did have his appeal. What we have said in Hagaman, and our reliance there on the Martin (Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 775) and Atkins (Atkins v. United States, 10 Cir., 204 F.2d 269) decisions, applies here.
The other point in the case is the claim that the Board's classification had no basis in fact. Witmer claimed agricultural, ministerial, and conscientious objector classifications in a series of claims. Of course this is not, itself, conclusive; a man has a right to raise as many points as he has. But there were inconsistencies in his claims; he was willing to help the war effort by raising food for it, he said, but not to bear arms. His ministerial claim was easily negatived. After going through the record we think there was ample to let the administrative authorities conclude that none of his claims was well-founded.
The whole matter was thoroughly discussed by Judge Murphy in his opinion, D.C.M.D.Pa.1953, 115 F.Supp. 19, and we cannot add helpfully to it except to point out that since it was written the Ninth Circuit, 203 F.2d 336, was reversed in the Dickinson case by the Supreme Court, Dickinson v. United States, 1953, 346 U. S. 389, 74 S.Ct. 152.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Hagaman, 11189.
-
United States v. Monroe
...left the Form under the door. 7 32 C.F.R. § 1642.41(a). 8 United States v. Witmer, D.C.M.D.Pa. 1953, 115 F.Supp. 19, affirmed, 3 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 95 and 1955, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392, 99 L.Ed. 428. 9 "* * * Any person * * * who * * * shall knowingly fail or neglect or refuse to perfo......
-
United States v. King
...for the court. United States v. Lloyd, supra, 431 F.2d at 164. Cf. United States v. Witmer, 115 F.Supp. 19 (M. D.Pa. 1953), aff'd, 213 F.2d 95 (3d Cir. 1954), aff'd, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392, 99 L.Ed. 428 (1955) (reopening and Taking no position on the broader reaches of this approach, we......
-
Witmer v. United States
...to submit. This prosecution followed, and Witmer's conviction, 115 F.Supp. 19, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 213 F.2d 95. We granted certiorari 348 U.S. 812, 75 S.Ct. The primary question here is whether, under the facts of this case, the narrow scope of review......