United States v. Kelsey Lee Bower

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Kelsey Lee Bower

420 F.2d 1383

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 1969

Docket24634

StatusPublished

This text of 420 F.2d 1383 (United States v. Kelsey Lee Bower) 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. Kelsey Lee Bower, 420 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The conviction of appellant for violation of Title 50 U.S.C. App. § 462 (refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States) is affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons given in the opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California filed May 12, 1969, 307 F.Supp. 1094 (N.D.Cal.1969). 1

1

. Some matters not discussed in the district court opinion should be mentioned. First, it should be noted that in the trial appellant did not testify, and no contention was made on his behalf that appellant’s motivation in whole or in part for refusing induction was based on a desire to have his claim processed. Second, appellant’s claim on appeal that the induction orders were not signed by a board member is foreclosed by United States v. Doran, 418 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1969) and United States v. Stark, 418 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1969) (en banc).

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

PER CURIAM:

The conviction of appellant for violation of Title 50 U.S.C. App. § 462 (refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States) is affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons given in the opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California filed May 12, 1969, 307 F.Supp. 1094 (N.D.Cal.1969). 1

1

. Some matters not discussed in the district court opinion should be mentioned. First, it should be noted that in the trial appellant did not testify, and no contention was made on his behalf that appellant’s motivation in whole or in part for refusing induction was based on a desire to have his claim processed. Second, appellant’s claim on appeal that the induction orders were not signed by a board member is foreclosed by United States v. Doran, 418 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1969) and United States v. Stark, 418 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1969) (en banc).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 F.2d 1383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kelsey-lee-bower-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack