¶1Martha Goldin (argued), Alan Saltzman, of Saltzman & Goldin, Hollywood, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
¶2D. 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.
¶3Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and COPPLE,* District Judge.
¶6This 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.
¶7Appellant 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.”
¶8Keeping 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).
¶9In view of the above, the other issues raised by appellant need not be discussed.