TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Jeffrey Paul Browning

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey Paul BROWNING, Appellant

United States v. Browning, 423 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 19, 1970
Docket
No. 25003
Judges
Hamlin, Duniway, Carter
Citations
423 F.2d 12011970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10248

Opinion — Carter

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge:

We vacated the submission of this case to await the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Gutknecht v. United States, (1/19/70) 396 U.S. 295 , 90 S.Ct. 506 , 24 L.Ed.2d 532 and Breen v. Selective Service Board (1/26/70) 396 U.S. 460 , 90 S.Ct. 661 , 24 L.Ed.2d 653 . Those decisions require the reversal of Browning’s conviction for refusing induction into the armed services, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a).

The combined effect of Gutknecht and Breen is to forbid the use of Selective Service delinquency regulations to accelerate the induction of a registrant.

Breen involved the reclassification of a registrant from II-S to I-A.

Gutknecht involved the promotion of a I-A registrant from the third priority to the first priority category of potential inductees.

Browning’s II-S classification expired on October 31, 1967. On November 8, 1967 he returned his Registration Certificate and his Notice of Classification to his local board together with a letter refusing to accept any classifica *1202 tion. On November 15, 1967 the local board declared him delinquent and classified him I-A. A notice in Browning’s file stated that the delinquency declaration had been made pursuant to Selective Service Director Hershey’s Local Board Memorandum 85, a memorandum authorizing acceleration of induction for failure to obey certain Selective Service regulations. Browning was ordered to report for induction in the Board’s next call of registrants. His conviction stemmed from his failure to obey that order.

The facts of the case make it clear that Browning’s induction was accelerated because of his refusal to carry selective service documents. The conviction must be reversed.

In light of the disposition of the case, we need not consider other matters raised by Browning. The judgment is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 21972: 119712026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Christian Winslow Hayden445 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1971)
  2. United States v. Peter Arthur Fox454 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1972)
  3. United States v. Jon Mardis Pennington439 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1971)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Peter Arthur Fox454 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1972)
  2. United States v. Christian Winslow Hayden445 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1971)
  3. United States v. Jon Mardis Pennington439 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1971)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295 (1970) 164
Breen v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 16, 396 U.S. 460 (1970) 148

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list