TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. William Lavere Townsend

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Lavere TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Townsend, 431 F.2d 702 (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
September 14, 1970
Docket
No. 25493
Judges
Browning, Carter, Per Curiam, Trask
Citations
431 F.2d 7021970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7359

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted for failing to report for induction on January 10, 1968, pursuant to an order to report issued December 19, 1967, 50 App. U.S.C. § 462(a), and was convicted by the district court sitting without a jury. The only evidence submitted was appellant’s selective service file, introduced by the government without objection by the defense.

Appellant contends that he was declared a delinquent prior to the issuance of the order to report for induction and therefore his conviction must be reversed under Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295 , 90 S.Ct. 506 , 24 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970).

In United States v. Thomas, 422 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1970), we held that, absent a showing to the contrary, we must assume that a delinquency declaration results in an accelerated induction requiring reversal.

In its supplemental memorandum, the government argues that it appears conclusively that appellant’s delinquency status did not affect the issuance of the December 19,1967, induction order, upon which the prosecution was based, because an earlier order to report had been issued on September 28, 1967, before appellant was declared a delinquent on November 14, 1967, thus establishing that he was due to be inducted in the regular order, without regard to delinquency. However, the file also discloses that on May 5, 1967, appellant had been ordered to report on May 16, 1967, for a physical examination, had failed to report, and as a result had been declared delinquent on that date. Even though appellant finally reported for his physical, it does not appear that the board removed him from *703 delinquency status pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 1642.4 (c). We cannot assume that the subsequent induction orders were not accelerated by his continuing status as a delinquent.

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. Peter Arthur Fox454 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1972)
  2. United States v. Larry Nolan Dobie444 F.2d 417 (4th Cir. 1971)
  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. Larry Nolan Dobie444 F.2d 417 (4th 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
United States v. Thomas, 422 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1970) 10

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