Skinner v. United States, 14256.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 14256.,14256. |
| Citation | 215 F.2d 767 |
| Parties | Raymond Keith SKINNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. B. Tietz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Manuel L. Real, Louis Lee Abbott, Cecil Hicks, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS and FEE, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.
An indictment was returned by the Grand Jury charging that defendant (Appellant here) knowingly failed and neglected to be inducted into the armed forces of the United States as so notified and ordered to do. Thereafter he was tried before the Court and convicted.
Upon registration (February 19, 1952) Appellant was classified as 1-A. A conscientious objector's form was requested but no appeal was taken from the 1-A classification. Thereafter Appellant married and the Board reclassified him 3-A when it was determined that he and his wife were expecting a child. Thereafter the local Board was informed that the baby had been born prematurely and had died, and on April 24, 1953 the Board reclassified the Appellant as 1-A. Form 110 notifying the Appellant of the classification or reclassification was mailed and on May 6, 1953 he was ordered to report for induction. He was later granted a stay of induction because of hardship, but on June 5, 1953 was again ordered to report for induction. On May 19, 1953, — after the first order to report for induction, — he requested an interview with the local Board and appeared before the Board on May 22, 1953, at which time, by a vote of 2 to 0 the Board determined that the information presented did not warrant reopening his classification. Again on June 8, 1953 after the second order to report for induction, the Board received a letter from Appellant requesting a 1-AO classification. On this date after the Board had reviewed Appellant's file, by a vote of 2 to 0 it determined to take no action.
No appeal was taken from the original classification or either of the reclassifications.
It seems that the only question to be considered is whether it was necessary for the Appellant to appeal from the classification of the local Board.
In the case of United States ex rel. La Charity v. Commanding Officer of United States Army Induction Center, Buffalo, N.Y., 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 381, 382, the Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Palmer
...supra; Kalpakoff v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 748; Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 85; Skinner v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 767; Mason v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 375; United States v. Rumsa, 7 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 927. Cf. Olinger v. P......
-
Evans v. United States, 15385.
...and the final classification had the effect of rendering harmless any errors committed in the earlier classifications, Skinner v. United States, 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 767, 768. Appellant had the right to appeal from the I-A classification of June 14, 1955, 32 C.F.R. § 1625.13,1 but he took no ap......
-
DuVernay v. United States
...cert. denied, 1964, 376 U.S. 914, 84 S.Ct. 669, 11 L. Ed.2d 610; Frank v. United States, 9th Cir. 1956, 236 F.2d 39; Skinner v. United States, 9th Cir. 1954, 215 F.2d 767, cert. denied, 1955, 348 U.S. 981, 75 S.Ct. 572, 99 L.Ed. 763; Van Bibber v. United States, 8th Cir. 1945, 151 F.2d 444.......
-
United States v. Milliken
...his last classification by the local board will preclude a registrant from claiming such classification was improper. Skinner v. United States, 215 F.2d 767 (9th Cir. 1954); Edwards v. United States, 395 F.2d 453 (9th Cir. Milliken not only failed to exhaust his administrative remedies but ......