422 F.2d 800 - United States v. Weldon — 422 F.2d 800

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1987

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1See 90 S.Ct. 1855.

¶2S. Leonard Scheff (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.

¶3Rubin Salter, Jr. (argued), Jo Ann D. Diamos, Asst. U. S. Attys., Edward E. *801Davis, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.

¶4Before MERRILL, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Appellant was convicted of refusing to be inducted into the armed forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462.

¶71. He contends that the Government failed ,to prove that he was called for induction in the order set out in 32 C.F.R. § 1631.7. He has, however, produced nothing to suggest that he was called out of turn.1 Under these circumstances the presumption of regularity of Board action prevails. United States v. Baker, 416 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1969); Rusk v. United States, 419 F.2d 133 (9th Cir. 1969).

¶82. Appellant contends that the order of induction signed by the clerk of the Board was not a Board order.2 The contention is without merit. United States v. Doran, 418 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Baker, supra. See United States v. Stark, 418 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1969), in which the court in banc overruled in part Brede v. United States, 396 F.2d 155 (9th Cir.), modified on rehearing, 400 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968).

¶93. There was basis in fact for the Board’s rejection of appellant’s claim of conscientious objection. See United States v. Corliss, 280 F.2d 808, 816 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 884, 81 S.Ct. 167, 5 L.Ed.2d 105 (1960) (similar criteria used by court to reject a claim of conscientious objection).

¶104. The information which appellant furnished to the Board did not establish a prima facie case for a minister’s exemption. Appellant never claimed such an exemption before the Board and, indeed, in his classification questionnaire affirmatively disclaimed that exemption.

¶11Judgment affirmed.