United States v. Jeffrey Paul Browning

423 F.2d 1201, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10248
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 1970
Docket25003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 423 F.2d 1201 (United States v. Jeffrey Paul Browning) 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. Jeffrey Paul Browning, 423 F.2d 1201, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10248 (9th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge:

We vacated the submission of this case to await the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Gutknecht v. United States, (1/19/70) 396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532 and Breen v. Selective Service Board (1/26/70) 396 U.S. 460, 90 S.Ct. 661, 24 L.Ed.2d 653. Those decisions require the reversal of Browning’s conviction for refusing induction into the armed services, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a).

The combined effect of Gutknecht and Breen is to forbid the use of Selective Service delinquency regulations to accelerate the induction of a registrant. Breen involved the reclassification of a registrant from II-S to I-A. Gutknecht involved the promotion of a I-A registrant from the third priority to the first priority category of potential inductees.

Browning’s II-S classification expired on October 31, 1967. On November 8, 1967 he returned his Registration Certificate and his Notice of Classification to his local board together with a letter refusing to accept any classifica *1202 tion. On November 15, 1967 the local board declared him delinquent and classified him I-A. A notice in Browning’s file stated that the delinquency declaration had been made pursuant to Selective Service Director Hershey’s Local Board Memorandum 85, a memorandum authorizing acceleration of induction for failure to obey certain Selective Service regulations. Browning was ordered to report for induction in the Board’s next call of registrants. His conviction stemmed from his failure to obey that order.

The facts of the case make it clear that Browning’s induction was accelerated because of his refusal to carry selective service documents. The conviction must be reversed.

In light of the disposition of the case, we need not consider other matters raised by Browning. The judgment is reversed.

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

Related

United States v. Peter Arthur Fox
454 F.2d 593 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Christian Winslow Hayden
445 F.2d 1365 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Jon Mardis Pennington
439 F.2d 145 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
423 F.2d 1201, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jeffrey-paul-browning-ca9-1970.