Bernard Edward Moore, AKA Bernard E. 'X' v. United States

302 F.2d 929, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5226
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 2, 1962
Docket17486
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 302 F.2d 929 (Bernard Edward Moore, AKA Bernard E. 'X' v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bernard Edward Moore, AKA Bernard E. 'X' v. United States, 302 F.2d 929, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5226 (9th Cir. 1962).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

’ Moore, having been ordered to report for induction by his draft board as required by the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq., refused to report because he claimed to be a conscientious objector and-claimed his draft board erred in classifying him I-A. He was indicted, tried and convicted and is asking us to review the said judgment of conviction. His defense in the lower court was an attack on the correctness, validity, and legality of the proceedings before the selective service board and the Department of Justice. In those proceedings he asserted that as a member of the organization commonly known as the “Black Muslims,” he was a conscientious objector and entitled to exemption from all military training or service. He further asserts that the I-A classification made by the board has no factual support. However, because of the refusal of Moore to report for induction, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. He did not bring himself to “the brink of induction,” and is therefore without standing to assert the invalidity of his classification. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305 (1944); Mason v. United States, 218 F.2d 375 (9th Cir. 1954); Francy v. United States, 217 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1954); Kalpakoff v. United States, 217 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1954); Williams v. United States, 203 F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1953); United States v. Balogh, 160 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1947).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Paul Leroy Olsen v. United States
423 F.2d 925 (Ninth Circuit, 1970)
Simuel Brent Schutz, Jr. v. United States
422 F.2d 991 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Burns
296 F. Supp. 162 (D. Colorado, 1969)
William Creighton Vaughn v. United States
404 F.2d 586 (Eighth Circuit, 1968)
Daniel Soranno v. United States
401 F.2d 534 (Ninth Circuit, 1968)
United States v. Jack Frederick McKart
395 F.2d 906 (Sixth Circuit, 1968)
Petersen v. Clark
285 F. Supp. 693 (N.D. California, 1968)
United States v. Smith
266 F. Supp. 309 (D. Montana, 1967)
David Leroy Daniels v. United States
372 F.2d 407 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)
United States v. Peter Hanlon Irons
369 F.2d 557 (Sixth Circuit, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
302 F.2d 929, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-edward-moore-aka-bernard-e-x-v-united-states-ca9-1962.