United States v. Davis, 26415.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 26415.,26415. |
| Citation | 432 F.2d 1009 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joseph Anthony DAVIS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Daniel Kallen (argued), Michael E. Somers, Santa Monica, Cal., for appellant.
Robert L. Meyer (argued), U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Criminal Division, Elgin C. Edwards, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, WRIGHT and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
The case is remanded without limitation of scope but especially for consideration of the case in the light of the intervening decision of Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532.
The parties may make their issues in district court by appropriate motions of either.
Any new appeal should be expedited.
The present bail order will remain in effect.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Davis v. United States 8212 1454
-
United States v. Fox, 71-1917.
...the other three cases involved failure to carry draft cards. In two cases, we have remanded instead of reversing, United States v. Davis, 9 Cir., 1970, 432 F.2d 1009; United States v. Pennington, 9 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 145. In Davis, the trial judge on remand found that there had been no ac......
-
United States v. Pennington, 24355.
...the district court for a determination of whether the defendant's delinquency status accelerated his induction order. United States v. Davis, 432 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir. 1970). We think this is the more appropriate disposition. We feel free to adopt it since the possibility of remand is not con......
-
United States v. Davis
...cases require a finding here that induction was accelerated because of his delinquency. On the record, we think not. United States v. Davis (9th Cir. 1970), 432 F.2d 1009; Misenhimer v. United States (9th Cir. July 22, 1971) 71-1384; and United States v. Pennington (9th Cir. 1971), 439 F.2d......