United States v. Craig Malone Thomas
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Malone THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Craig Malone Thomas appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of violating 50 U.S.C.App. § 462, refusal to submit to induction. The induction order upon which he was convicted resulted from his having been processed as a “delinquent” for “failure to cooperate and complete” his Armed Forces physical examination following his classification as I-A. We reverse.
In Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295 , 90 S.Ct. 506 , 24 L.Ed.2d 532 (dee. Jan. 19, 1970,) the delinquency regulations used here were held to be unauthorized by statute.
See also Breen v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, 396 U.S. 460 , 90 S.Ct. 661 , 24 L.Ed.2d 653 (dec. Jan. 26, 1970). For the reasons given in Gutknecht, swpra, we hold that Thomas did not fail to exhaust his admin *1328 istrative remedies. Finally, having classified him delinquent, it must be assumed absent a showing to the contrary that the board followed the regulatory command ( 32 C.F.R. § 1642.13 ) and accelerated his induction which, in turn, affected the registrant’s substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 416 F.2d 202, 204-205 (9th Cir. 1969).
Reversed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(presumption that a delinquent’s induction was accelerated, “absent a showing to the contrary”)
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.