United States v. Aldo Malatesta

447 F.2d 1365
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 12, 1971
Docket71-1696
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

Bluebook
United States v. Aldo Malatesta, 447 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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

United States v. Neal Allen Shea
508 F.2d 82 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Alan Robert Scialabba
465 F.2d 1395 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
447 F.2d 1365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-aldo-malatesta-ca9-1971.