United States v. Thomas Eugene Potter

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Thomas Eugene Potter

457 F.2d 1316, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10186

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1972

Docket72-1174

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 1316 (United States v. Thomas Eugene Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Thomas Eugene Potter, 457 F.2d 1316, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10186 (6th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We consider a motion to affirm the judgment below on the grounds that it is manifest that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument. 6th Cir. R. 8.

Appellant was convicted for refusal to submit to induction into the armed forces of the United States, in violation of 50 U.S.C.App. § 462. His only defense is that his 1-A classification and the order to report for induction were invalid because all the members of his local board did not reside in the area in which the board had jurisdiction, and that there were eligible persons who were available and willing to serve. 32 C.F.R. § 7604.52 (b) (1970). He relies on United States v. Cabbage, 430 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir. 1970).

We observe that this residential requirement has been eliminated by executive order from the current regulations, 32 C.F.R. § 1604.52(b) (1971), and that the District Court was advised that, since the Cabbage decision, board membership in that judicial district has been reconstituted. We also observe that in United States v. Hart, 449 F.2d 340 (6th Cir. 1971), we held that the action of a local board cannot be challenged on the ground of the lack of proper residential qualifications of some of its members. *1317 We held that such a board is a de facto board whose action is not subject to collateral attack. Since this appeal is clearly controlled by the decision in Hart, the motion to affirm is granted.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We consider a motion to affirm the judgment below on the grounds that it is manifest that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument. 6th Cir. R. 8.

Appellant was convicted for refusal to submit to induction into the armed forces of the United States, in violation of 50 U.S.C.App. § 462. His only defense is that his 1-A classification and the order to report for induction were invalid because all the members of his local board did not reside in the area in which the board had jurisdiction, and that there were eligible persons who were available and willing to serve. 32 C.F.R. § 7604.52 (b) (1970). He relies on United States v. Cabbage, 430 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir. 1970).

We observe that this residential requirement has been eliminated by executive order from the current regulations, 32 C.F.R. § 1604.52(b) (1971), and that the District Court was advised that, since the Cabbage decision, board membership in that judicial district has been reconstituted. We also observe that in United States v. Hart, 449 F.2d 340 (6th Cir. 1971), we held that the action of a local board cannot be challenged on the ground of the lack of proper residential qualifications of some of its members. *1317 We held that such a board is a de facto board whose action is not subject to collateral attack. Since this appeal is clearly controlled by the decision in Hart, the motion to affirm is granted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 1316, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thomas-eugene-potter-ca6-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack