Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1972

United States v. Philip Edward Ervin

United States v. Philip Edward Ervin
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 3, 1972 · Chambers, Koelsch, Copple
464 F.2d 1021 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Martha Goldin (argued), Alan Saltzman, of Saltzman & Goldin, Hollywood, Cal., for defendant-appellant., D. Henry Thayer, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Eric A. Nobles, Lawrence Campbell, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

United States v. Philip Edward Ervin

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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 entered by the trial judge after finding appellant guilty of violating 50 App. U. S.C. § 462 (refusal to submit to induction). We affirm.

Appellant contends that he should have been classified as a conscientious objector. The board, after reviewing his application for such classification and following a personal appearance, found that “he is not sincere and does not qualify as a conscientious objector.”

Keeping in mind that the scope of judicial review here is “the narrowest known to the law”, Blalock v. United States, 247 F.2d 615 (4th Cir. 1957), we have reviewed the record on appeal and find that there is sufficient basis-in-fact to support the finding of the draft board. United States v. Kember, 437 F. 2d 534, 535 (9th Cir. 1970).

In view of the above, the other issues raised by appellant need not be discussed.

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