United States v. William E. McKee

Fourth Circuit

United States v. William E. McKee

446 F.2d 974, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9011

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 1971

Docket14063

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 446 F.2d 974 (United States v. William E. McKee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. William E. McKee, 446 F.2d 974, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9011 (4th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

William E. McKee, convicted of refusing to submit to induction, appeals on the grounds that his draft board failed to consider his application for classification as a conscientious objector. McKee requested reclassification as a conscientious objector for the first time after his induction order had been issued. * The Supreme Court has held that a registrant whose conscientious objection crystallizes only after his induction notice is mailed has no right to have his classification reopened, and that he must submit his claim through military channels. Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971). The decision in Ehlert is controlling here. The judgment is

Affirmed.

*

We find no merit in McKee’s claim that the board by granting his request for transfer of the place of induction invalidated the induction order. 32 C.F.R. §§ 1632.2(d), 1632.9(g).

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

PER CURIAM:

William E. McKee, convicted of refusing to submit to induction, appeals on the grounds that his draft board failed to consider his application for classification as a conscientious objector. McKee requested reclassification as a conscientious objector for the first time after his induction order had been issued. * The Supreme Court has held that a registrant whose conscientious objection crystallizes only after his induction notice is mailed has no right to have his classification reopened, and that he must submit his claim through military channels. Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971). The decision in Ehlert is controlling here. The judgment is

Affirmed.

*

We find no merit in McKee’s claim that the board by granting his request for transfer of the place of induction invalidated the induction order. 32 C.F.R. §§ 1632.2(d), 1632.9(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 F.2d 974, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-e-mckee-ca4-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack