United States v. Wilbur, 24704.
| Citation | 427 F.2d 947 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24704.,24704. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stuart Alan WILBUR, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Carol K. Smith (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
John W. Hornbeck (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Chief, Criminal Division, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARNES, CARTER and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
Wilbur was found guilty by a jury of refusal to submit to induction in the armed forces, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. He appeals from his conviction raising a number of alleged errors committed by the selective service system and the trial court. Three contentions merit written consideration:
(1) Wilbur was improperly denied a mandatory educational deferment;
(2) Wilbur's local board failed to forward a statement of Wilbur's emotional condition for consideration by the Armed Forces examining center;
(3) The local board refused to grant a requested personal appearance.
Consideration of these contentions will be aided by knowledge of Wilbur's relevant dealings with the Selective Service. Wilbur was at all times a registrant under the jurisdiction of Local Board 117 at Gardena, California. All the notices to him, hereafter referred to, came from Local Board 117. On March 8, 1967 Wilbur was classified I-A after his local board learned that he had not enrolled for the winter quarter at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). On July 18, 1967, he was ordered to report for a pre-induction physical on August 4, 1967. On July 31, 1967, the Board received a letter from a certified psychologist discussing Wilbur's mental and emotional state. On August 4, 1967 Wilbur was examined and found acceptable for service.
On September 8, 1967 the board received a letter from the UCSB stating that Wilbur had been accepted for readmission for the fall quarter. On November 1, 1967 the board received SSS Form 109-A from UCSB indicating that Wilbur was currently enrolled as a full-time student. The next day the board met and again classified Wilbur I-A. On November 7, 1967 it mailed him a form notifying him of his right to request a personal appearance or appeal within 30 days. On December 4, 1967 defendant turned in his draft card and classification card to a Santa Barbara local board together with the following statement: The cards and statements were forwarded to Local Board 117.
On December 7, 1967 Local Board 117 reviewed Wilbur's Student Certificate and declined to reopen his classification. On March 11, 1968, UCSB notified the local board that Wilbur was no longer enrolled at the University. On March 15, 1968 Wilbur was mailed an induction order for April 8, 1968. He reported, refused to submit to induction, and has been prosecuted for that offense.
Wilbur's claims for a II-S deferment are governed by 32 CFR 1622.25(a). In pertinent part that regulation reads "In Class II-S shall be placed any registrant who has requested such deferment * * *" Wilbur's selective service file clearly shows that Wilbur never requested a student deferment. The SSS Form 109-A sent by UCSB to the local board noted "Submission of this form does not constitute a request for deferment." Since the burden of showing entitlement to a deferment was on Wilbur, he can not complain that the local board wrongly denied him a II-S deferment at any time after March 8, 1967.1
Wilbur offered proof from the secretary of the board group covering Wilbur's board, that it was the practice of the board to send a Form 104 (Request for Undergraduate Student Deferment) to a registrant upon receipt from his school of a Form 109 (Statement of Full-Time Enrollment). This was not done in Wilbur's case. Wilbur contends this failure to follow board practice requires a reversal of his conviction.
There is law to the effect that a national administrative agency which promulgates regulations may not ignore the procedures thus established. Smith v. Resor, (2 Cir. 1969) 406 F.2d 141, 145; Hammond v. Lenfest, (2 Cir. 1968) 398 F.2d 705. As stated in Hammond "* * * a validly promulgated regulation binds the government as much as the individual subject to the regulation; and, this is no less so because the governmental action is essentially discretionary in nature." (p. 715). These cases, involving regulations promulgated by the Army, relied on Supreme Court cases in the area of loyalty discharges and deportation enunciating the same principle of law. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 79 S. Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1959).
None of these cases concerns the practice of a local unit of an agency. No case has been cited concerning the situation where a local unit has adopted some practice not provided for by the regulations. Finally, there is no showing that Wilbur knew of the local practice and relied on it. There is no merit to the contention.
The Failure to Forward the Statement of Mental and Emotional Condition.
Prior to Wilbur's physical on August 4, 1967 his local board received a letter from Earl V. Pullias, a Certified Psychologist and Professor of Education at the University of Southern California. The letter noted that Mr. Pullias had been seeing Wilbur "for about three months on a counseling basis," and spoke of his "relatively serious pschological problems." This letter was not forwarded to the Armed Forces Entrance and Examining Station with Wilbur's other papers.
Wilbur contends that the board violated 32 CFR 1628.13(a) (3) in failing to forward the Pullias letter. The section provides that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheridan v. United States
...32 C.F.R. § 1622.25(a), and to submit evidence that he is entitled to such a deferment. 32 C.F.R. § 1622.25(d); United States v. Wilbur, 427 F. 2d 947, 949 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 250, 27 L.Ed.2d 250 (1970). We need not decide, however, whether the unofficial notifi......
-
United States v. Aull
...documentary medical information...."); AR 601-270, ch. 4, § 2, ¶ 4-20(h) (6) 1969 ("Documentary evidence.") 27 See United States v. Wilbur, 427 F.2d 947, 949-950 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 250, 27 L.Ed.2d 250 28 Compare AR 601-270, ch. 4, § 2, ¶ 4.22 (d) 1969; AR 601-2......
-
TRW, Inc. v. F.T.C.
...its failure to follow that practice would have afforded petitioners no defense to the underlying complaint. United States v. Wilbur, 427 F.2d 947, 949 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 250, 27 L.Ed.2d 250 (1970). Whether to grant an opportunity for informal disposition of a c......
-
Barrus Construction Company v. NLRB
...Transfer & Storage v. Froehlke, 480 F.2d 498 (4th Cir., 1973); Brooks v. Clifford, 409 F.2d 700, 706 (4th Cir. 1969); United States v. Wilbur, 427 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1970); Smith v. Resor, 406 F.2d 141 (2nd Cir. 1969); Bonita, Inc. v. Wirtz, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 163, 369 F.2d 208 (1966); United......