United States v. Aldo Malatesta
This text of 447 F.2d 1365 (United States v. Aldo Malatesta) 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.
Opinion
Appellant asks that his conviction for failure to submit to induction be set aside because (1) 204 days elapsed between his first order to report and the final date when his refusal resulted in prosecution, and (2) the board should have reopened his classification as he made out a prima facie case for 1-Y classification.
His first claim is that the board is permitted extensions of only 120 days from the original order and if the extension is beyond that time there must be a new order under 32 CFR 1632.2. United States v. Lonidier, 427 F.2d 30 (9 Cir. 1970). We find here the delay chargeable to the board to be less than 120 days and delay occasioned by the registrant should not be considered in his favor in this context. United States v. Foster, 439 F.2d 29 (9 Cir. 1971), approved in United States v. Munsen, 443 F.2d 1229 (9 Cir. 6/11/71).
We cannot find from the record that appellant made out a prima facie case requiring the board to reopen and reclassify appellant 1-Y. United States v. Kohls, 441 F.2d 1076 (9 Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
447 F.2d 1365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-aldo-malatesta-ca9-1971.