United States v. Jelinski, 26914.
Citation | 411 F.2d 476 |
Decision Date | 19 June 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 26914.,26914. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeff J. JELINSKI, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Philip E. Hamner, San Antonio, Tex., Court appointed, for appellant.
Ted Butler, U. S. Atty., Wayne F. Speck, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
Before BELL and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges, and CHOATE, Senior District Judge.
Appellant, sixteen year old Jeff J. Jelinski, was adjudged a juvenile delinquent1 for his violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382, in that he re-entered Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, after being barred therefrom by order of the Base Commander.2 The District Judge ordered that appellant be committed to the Attorney General for a period of sixty days for observation and study3 preliminary to further commitment or grant of probation.
Appellant is the civilian son of a serviceman who was stationed at the Kelly Base. When appellant's father was transferred overseas, the family was required by military regulations to move from their quarters on the Base. Appellant, however, was permitted to continue to enjoy the Base recreational facilities and to make purchases on the Base at a rate afforded military personnel. On December 4, 1967, the Base Commander, having received numerous reports of appellant's misconduct on the Base, issued an order, without prior notice or hearing, barring appellant from re-entering the Base. The order was delivered to and received by appellant and his mother. On July 28, 1968, appellant was arrested on the base.4
Appellant does not, and indeed cannot, seriously question the Base Commander's authority to exclude civilians from the area of his command. See Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961) and Weissman v. United States, 387 F.2d 271 (10 Cir. 1967). Further, no issue is raised regarding notice of the order of debarment which appellant was found to have violated.5 Nor can it be said that the order was not rationally premised. However, appellant strenuously argues that the issuance of the order without notice and without a prior hearing on the merits was a denial of due process of law.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Albertini, 83-1624
...Government of Canal Zone v. Brooks, 427 F.2d 346 (CA5 1970) (conviction affirmed 17 months after order issued); United States v. Jelinski, 411 F.2d 476 (CA5 1969) (reentry 71/2 months after order); Weissman v. United States, 387 F.2d 271 (CA10 1967) (2 days); Holdridge v. United States, 282......
-
United States v. Flower
...Amendment. Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers, etc. v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); United States v. Jelinski, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 476; Government of Canal Zone v. Brooks, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d However, as stated, appellant claims that his re-entry and cond......
-
GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
...lands, there is little doubt that Defendant Army Corps could exclude civilians from its property altogether. See United States v. Jelinski , 411 F.2d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1969)9 ("We do not doubt the Commander's historically recognized authority to summarily bar civilians from a military esta......
-
Serrano Medina v. U.S., 82-1702
...to summarily exclude civilians from the installation without violating the requirements of the due process clause"); United States v. Jelinski, 411 F.2d 476, 477 (5th Cir.) (no due process violation where subject barred without notice or hearing), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 943, 90 S.Ct. 380, 2......