United States v. Wright

Decision Date30 March 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-1214.,72-1214.
Citation474 F.2d 853
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Orson WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Raymond Orson Wright, in pro. per.

David Fox, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Leslie J. Osborne, Jr., Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WRIGHT and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and EAST,* District Judge.

EAST, District Judge:

On May 27, 1970, the appellant, Raymond Orson Wright (Wright), was indicted for failure to report to the local Los Angeles board per order for civilian employment, in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 462.

Prior to trial, Wright filed a motion to proceed in propria persona and his then second retained counsel asked to be relieved as counsel. The trial Court granted the motion, in part, but ordered counsel to continue as advisor and to assist Wright.

At trial the government's only evidence was Wright's Selective Service File (SSF) with the board. Wright participated in the trial, testified on his own behalf and made argument to the Court and jury, with assistance from counsel.

Wright moved for an acquittal, urging that various procedural errors by the local and appeal boards constituted a denial of due process and further prejudiced him in his administrative appeal. The Court denied the motion, but permitted Wright to present to the jury his position as an issue of fact: whether his failure to appear per order for civilian employment was knowingly and wilfully as charged, or whether he was so confused by duplicate and countermanding notices and orders as to be excused.

The jury found Wright guilty as charged. He was sentenced to five years' probation and a fine of $2,000 and on November 19, 1971 he filed this appeal and appears in propria persona. He is and has been at liberty.

Wright raises some ten contentions of error, all of which are without merit, and only three warrant comment. We affirm.

1. Was the Local Board\'s action, the including of minutes of the defendant\'s personal appearance in his SSF without notifying the defendant of the existence of those minutes, a denial of due process?

Wright had requested change of his I-A classification to that of I-O (conscientious objector). On December 6, 1966 the Board met with Wright personally in connection with his request and the Clerk filed a document or memo of the purpose and the result of that meeting. The memo is no less nor more than a clear recital of reasons the Board granted Wright's requested I-O classification. The memo was required had the Board refused the I-O classification. United States v. Andersen, 447 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1971). The memo contained no adverse recitals and though not required, was in nowise prejudicial to Wright's appeal.1

2. Did the appeal board\'s action in classifying the defendant I-O without stating reasons for that classification bar effective judicial review of such a classification?

Wright appealed from that portion of his requested I-O classification which provided for compulsory civilian employment.

The requirement that Selective Service registrants perform work of national importance in lieu of service is constitutional. O'Connor v. United States, 415 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 968, 90 S.Ct. 1002, 25 L. Ed.2d 263 (1970); United States v. Perrin, 431 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1970).

He raised no issue, he presented no information that indicated he was entitled to any other classification save I-O. All he did was to ask the appeal board to entertain an action beyond its authority and to engage in an illegal act (releasing him from a civilian service obligation). Under these circumstances the appeal board acted properly in affirming the classification awarded...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Irby v. Fitz-Hugh, Civ. A. No. 87-0633-R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • May 16, 1988
    ...penalizing lessor's intentional failure to furnish tenant water or heat did not amount to involuntary servitude); United States v. Wright, 474 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 414 U.S. 870, 94 S.Ct. 86, 38 L.Ed.2d 88 (1973) (requiring work of national import in lieu of military service is ......
  • Moreno v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 29, 2016
    ... ... ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL CO., et. al., Defendants.No. 2:13-cv-00691-KJM-KJNUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAJune 29, 2016 ORDERDefendant Ross Island Sand ... Whether a motion to quash is granted is left to the district court's discretion. United States v. Watson, 29 F. App'x 455, 456 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT