White v. United States, 24316.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24316.,24316. |
| Citation | 422 F.2d 1254 |
| Parties | Leslie Robert WHITE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Joel Shawn (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Coley Bresee (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
On January 15, 1969, appellant was charged in a one count indictment with willful failure to comply with an order of his Selective Service Board to report on December 16, 1968, for instructions concerning alternative service employment.1 He was then convicted by a jury and thereafter duly sentenced.
The record presents a portrait of an indulgent Board and United States Attorney attempting to give a young man every opportunity to avoid criminal prosecution. Appellant did not conclude that he was a conscientious objector for more than three years after he registered. On August 24, 1964, he was classified I-O. The following March, the Board received his completed SSS Form 152, in which he listed three types of civilian work. In June, 1966, appellant was directed to appear for a conference in connection with reaching agreement on the type of work to be performed. He did not appear on that date, nor on later dates designated by the Board. Appellant was indicted on January 18, 1968, for failing to report for civilian work on November 8, 1966, the date fixed by Board Order of October 25th. Subsequently, on November 11, 1967, the registrant notified the Board that his wife had given birth to a child. In June, 1968, the Board met, reviewed the new information, declined to reopen the appellant's file, and at the same time approved civilian work for the registrant at the Los Angeles Department of Hospitals. On June 25th, appellant was notified by the local Board that the birth of the child was not a change in status resulting from circumstances over which registrant had no control, and declined to reopen his file. On December 5th, appellant, by letter, was ordered to report to the local Board on December 16, 1968, to receive his instructions on employment. Appellant did not report for such instructions. As a result of this failure to report, he was again indicted, then prosecuted and convicted. From this conviction he appeals. Immediately after conviction and sentence on the second indictment, the first indictment was dismissed.
It is our considered view that the first order to report for civilian work, on which order the indictment of January 18, 1968, was returned, was superseded by the order of December 5, 1968, and on which order the present conviction is grounded. United States v. Hughes, 414 F.2d 1330, 1336 (9th Cir. 1969), and United States v. Stark, 418 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1969)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Case, 23655-4.
...to Report for Induction, it had the effect of cancelling and superceding the original order of February 22nd. See White v. United States, 422 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1970); Rodriguez v. United States, 452 F.2d 659 (7th Cir. 1972). In that event, a criminal prosecution against this defendant for......
-
United States v. Watson, 20399.
...claims, would work to cancel the first order and require consideration of his claim for reclassification. See White v. United States, 422 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1970). A postponement of induction does not render invalid the order to report for induction which has been issued to the registrant ......
-
United States v. Dell'Anno
...action of June 19, 1967, then the III-A claim was presented well before the June 19, 1967, date. Our decision in White v. United States, 422 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1970), is relied upon to establish that the issuance by the board of an order to report for induction on June 19, 1967, operated t......
-
United States v. Levy, 72-1676.
...it was written. But it could not have retroactive effect . . .\' (emphasis in the original) 427 F.2d at p. 650. "White v. United States, 442 422 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1970), which Maybury urges, is not in point. Cf. United States v. Martinez, 427 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.......