United States v. Theodore Edward Newton

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Theodore Edward Newton

443 F.2d 1078, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9517

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 1971

Docket71-1422_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 443 F.2d 1078 (United States v. Theodore Edward Newton) 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. Theodore Edward Newton, 443 F.2d 1078, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9517 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a conviction for failure to report to his local board for civilian work assignment in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the local board erred in refusing to classify him IV-D. Appellant has never performed fully the duties of a minister or practiced in the ministry as his customary vocation. 50 U.S.C. App. § 466(g). The Selective Service file shows his desire to become a minister, but that he did not pursue a full time course of study to that end. 32 C.F.R. § 1622.43. The board’s determination was not without basis in fact. Gray v. United States, (9 Cir. 1968) 391 F.2d 270. Nor did appellant exhaust his administrative remedies by an appeal to the appeal board.

Appellant’s remaining points are without merit. Since he committed the crime for which he was convicted before he was notified of the civilian work to which he was to be ordered, he cannot raise as a defense the alleged unlawfulness of that work assignment.

Finally, appellant in his brief under the title of “Constitutional Points” has not set forth his “contentions * * * and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.” Rule 28(a) (4) Fed.Rules of App.Proc.

The judgment is affirmed. The mandate will issue forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a conviction for failure to report to his local board for civilian work assignment in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the local board erred in refusing to classify him IV-D. Appellant has never performed fully the duties of a minister or practiced in the ministry as his customary vocation. 50 U.S.C. App. § 466(g). The Selective Service file shows his desire to become a minister, but that he did not pursue a full time course of study to that end. 32 C.F.R. § 1622.43. The board’s determination was not without basis in fact. Gray v. United States, (9 Cir. 1968) 391 F.2d 270. Nor did appellant exhaust his administrative remedies by an appeal to the appeal board.

Appellant’s remaining points are without merit. Since he committed the crime for which he was convicted before he was notified of the civilian work to which he was to be ordered, he cannot raise as a defense the alleged unlawfulness of that work assignment.

Finally, appellant in his brief under the title of “Constitutional Points” has not set forth his “contentions * * * and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.” Rule 28(a) (4) Fed.Rules of App.Proc.

The judgment is affirmed. The mandate will issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 1078, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-theodore-edward-newton-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack