United States v. Whitaker, 11645.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11645.,11645. |
| Citation | 395 F.2d 664 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Douglas Ray WHITAKER, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert G. Cabell, Jr., Richmond, Va. (White, Roberts, Cabell & Paris, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Michael Morchower, Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Ray Whitaker was found guilty of failing to report for civilian work in lieu of induction into the armed forces. He complains that the local selective service board failed to consider a letter indicating a change in his status and also failed to notify him of any action taken pursuant to his request to reopen and consider anew his classification. We affirm.
Whitaker, after consideration of his questionnaire which stated that he was employed as a dry wall applicator working thirty-five hours a week, was a conscientious objector and was a Jehovah Witness minister spending fourteen hours a week in religious activities, was classified by his local board as a conscientious objector and mailed a notice of classification on September 20, 1965. There was no appeal. On January 4, 1966, Whitaker took his armed forces physical examination which he passed. The board advised him on April 29, 1966, that in due course he would be directed to report for civilian employment in lieu of service in the armed forces. Whitaker then wrote the board that he was unable to accept civilian work because it would compromise his ministerial beliefs and duties. After a personal appearance before the board, there was no change in his classification. On December 13, 1966, the board ordered Whitaker to report for civilian assignment on January 10, 1967, at the Virginia Highway Department. The letter on which this appeal is based was written to the board on January 5, 1967.
Whitaker's first contention is that the local board never considered his letter written five days before he was to report for civilian work and twenty-three days after he had received his orders in which he asserted that there had been a change in his status, an increase in his religious activities so that he was then serving an average of ninety-nine hours a month in the ministry. 32 C.F. R. § 1625.2 states in part:
"The classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Pyrtle
...the Local Board to notify the defendant, or his father, as provided in 32 C.F.R. 1625.4, that it would not do so. See United States v. Whitaker, 395 F.2d 664 (4th Cir.1968). Nor was there any prejudice to the defendant because there is not a showing that the members of the Local Board made ......
-
Lentine v. Hollingsworth, Civ. A. No. 69-650.
...United States v. Helm (C.C.A. N.C.1967) 386 F.2d 434 435, cert. den. 390 U.S. 958, 88 S.Ct. 1045, 19 L.Ed.2d 1153; United States v. Whitaker (C.C.A. Va.1968) 395 F.2d 664; Straight v. United States (C.C.A.Cal.1969) 413 F.2d 263, 264.7 It is not permissive, but mandatory: it plainly divests ......
-
United States v. Mercado, 838
...United States v. Mohammed, 288 F.2d 236, 243 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820, 82 S.Ct. 37, 7 L.Ed.2d 26 (1961); United States v. Whitaker, 395 F.2d 664 (4 Cir. 1968). Indeed, Mercado's claims are so insubstantial that we would have affirmed his conviction from the bench but for fear th......
-
Friedman v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
... ... No. 462, Docket 31110 ... United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit ... Argued May 16, 1968 ... ...