U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1969

Robert Allen Brown v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 23, 1969 · Barnes, Ely, Per Curiam, Solomon

409 F.2d 1354 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Volney V. Brown, Jr. (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant., Dennis E. Kinnaird (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Clark Allen Roberts (8th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Barry Lee Blakely (9th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Charles Keith Hardman (9th Cir. 1971)
United States v. Bruce (District Court, D. South Carolina 1971)
United States v. Richard Field Pieters (9th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Robert Mike Schrader (9th Cir. 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces.

“A registrant is not entitled to have a local board reopen his classification where the conscientious objector form is not filed until after the registrant has refused to submit to induction. *1355 Palmer v. United States, 9 Cir., 1968, 401 F.2d 226.” Blades v. United States, 407 F.2d 1397, 1399 (9th Cir. 1969).

Here the appellant not only failed to file his claim before his refusal to be inducted, but failed to ask for such a form. Appellant mistakenly relies on our decision in Boyd v. United States, 269 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1959). In Boyd, the appellant was ordered to report for induction, but never received the order, and thereafter requested a conscientious objector form: This request, made nearly three months prior to Boyd’s refusal of induction, was granted, and he filed an SSS Form 150, but the Board denied the conscientious objector status without reopening the case. Boyd was thereafter convicted for his unlawful refusal to submit to induction, and we affirmed.

Here appellant refused induction, and then desired to reopen his classification after his crime had been committed. This he cannot do.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.