Penley v. United States

First Circuit

Penley v. United States

145 F.2d 748, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2644

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1944

DocketNo. 3963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 F.2d 748 (Penley v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penley v. United States, 145 F.2d 748, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2644 (1st Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODBURY, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment after a jury had found him guilty as charged in an indictment alleging that he had violated § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 894, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311, by knowingly failing to report for induction pursuant to an order of his local draft board.

From the record it appears that the defendant-appellant requested classification in IV-E as a conscientious objector and that his local board so classified him. But on appeal taken by the government appeal' agent on behalf of the government the board of appeal unanimously put him in I-A. He was duly notified of this classification and in due course he received the order to report for induction which he admittedly refused to obey. His indictment, trial, conviction and sentence followed. At the trial below the court excluded certain evidence offered by the defendant to show that the board of appeal had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and contrary to law in classifying him in I-A instead of IV-E and this, he contends, constitutes reversible error.

The case at bar differs from Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, only in that the defendant here was ordered to report for induction into the armed forces, whereas in the Falbo case the registrant was ordered to report for assignment to work of national importance. No argument is needed to show that this difference does not distinguish the instant case from the one cited. On the authority of that case,

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

WOODBURY, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment after a jury had found him guilty as charged in an indictment alleging that he had violated § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 894, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311, by knowingly failing to report for induction pursuant to an order of his local draft board.

From the record it appears that the defendant-appellant requested classification in IV-E as a conscientious objector and that his local board so classified him. But on appeal taken by the government appeal' agent on behalf of the government the board of appeal unanimously put him in I-A. He was duly notified of this classification and in due course he received the order to report for induction which he admittedly refused to obey. His indictment, trial, conviction and sentence followed. At the trial below the court excluded certain evidence offered by the defendant to show that the board of appeal had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and contrary to law in classifying him in I-A instead of IV-E and this, he contends, constitutes reversible error.

The case at bar differs from Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, only in that the defendant here was ordered to report for induction into the armed forces, whereas in the Falbo case the registrant was ordered to report for assignment to work of national importance. No argument is needed to show that this difference does not distinguish the instant case from the one cited. On the authority of that case,

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F.2d 748, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penley-v-united-states-ca1-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack