Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

441 F.2d 726

Docket No. 19753.

United States v. Hedges

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 10, 1971.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-05-10

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1972

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Ehlert v. United States · United States v. Hedges

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-05-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joseph S. Brick, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.

¶2Allen L. Donielson, U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, Claude H. Freeman, Richard J. Barry, Asst. U. S. Attys., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.

¶3Before MATTHES, Chief Judge and GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5On March 24, 1969, 297 F.Supp. 946, the defendant was convicted of failing to comply with an order of his local selective service board to report for and submit to induction into the armed forces of the United States. Timely appeal was filed. It is urged on appeal, inter alia, that the local draft board failed to afford the defendant due process in refusing to reopen his I-A classification after the defendant had received his induction order. Defendant asserts that he filed as a conscientious objector after he had received his order to report. Defendant claims that this constitutes “a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant has no control.” 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2. Defendant’s challenge cannot be sustained. This case is controlled by the *727recent decision in Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971), which upholds the right of a local board to refuse to consider a late claim (after induction notice is received) for classification as a conscientious objector. We have considered the other alleged procedural irregularities in the induction process and find no prejudicial error.

¶6Judgment affirmed.1

/441/f2d/726 · .json · Public domain