United States v. Samir Ibrahim Tantash

409 F.2d 227
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 16, 1969·No. 23383_1·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant stands convicted of refusal to report for and submit to induction into the armed forces. He is a Jordanian alien with minimal familiarity with the English language. In various respects he asserts that he was not afforded sufficient consideration by his local board and the induction authorities. On this appeal he contends that his conviction should be set aside due to his lack of knowledge of his rights and obligations and of the courses open to him. We find no merit in any of his contentions.

*228 The record establishes that he was fairly processed and received notice of his I-A classification. He made no request for change of classification and the local board is not to be faulted for failing to treat him as though he had.

After his first failure to report for induction a special agent conferred with him to impress upon him the seriousness of his default. He gave no indication of a desire to change his classification but stated that he wished to serve in the armed forces.

After his second failure to report the special agent called to ascertain the reason and explained that he might well be rejected due to his language deficiencies. His response was, “I no go army. If I go induction station and take test and get lucky and pass test, I am in army. Go Viet Nam and get killed. I no go. You want me, you come and get me.”

Appellant was not entitled to be provided with legal assistance in the selective service process. 32 CFR 1624.1(b). We find no error in the instructions. Exclusion of minors from the jury panel did not amount to violation of constitutional rights. George v. United States, 196 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1952).

Judgment affirmed.

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

United States v. Samir Ibrahim Tantash, 409 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1969).

409 F.2d 227 (United States v. Samir Ibrahim Tantash) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Geelan
509 F.2d 737 (Eighth Circuit, 1974)
Hopkins v. State
311 A.2d 483 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
Commonwealth v. Cobbs
305 A.2d 25 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
United States v. Gerard Allyn Olson
473 F.2d 686 (Eighth Circuit, 1973)
Wilkins v. State
300 A.2d 411 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
United States v. Patrick Carl Gast
457 F.2d 141 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Karen Duncan
456 F.2d 1401 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Guzman
337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D. New York, 1972)
People v. Hoiland
22 Cal. App. 3d 530 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
United States v. Donald Rutherford McVean
436 F.2d 1120 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
People v. Veralli
64 Misc. 2d 321 (New York County Courts, 1970)
United States v. Hosmer
310 F. Supp. 1166 (D. Maine, 1970)
United States v. Benjamin J. Butera
420 F.2d 564 (First Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Butera
420 F.2d 564 (First Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Weller
309 F. Supp. 50 (N.D. California, 1969)