TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States of America, and v. Patrick Munro Whelan, And

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Patrick Munro WHELAN, Defendant and Appellant

United States, and v. Whelan, 463 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1972)
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
July 7, 1972
Docket
No. 72-1366
Judges
Merrill, Kilkenny, Frey
Citations
463 F.2d 10931972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8555

Opinion — Per Curiam

*1094 PER CURIAM:

The defendant was found guilty of refusing to be inducted into the Armed Forces of the United States. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

The defendant raises several issues challenging the validity of his order of induction. We find all issues raised are without merit, and affirm.

The issue raised by defendant which is crucial to a disposition of this case is whether the local Board should mail a notice to report for pre-induction physical to an address telephoned-in to the Board or whether the Board should mail such notice to the home address of defendant as confirmed by his signature.

1

32 C.F.R. 1641.7(a) requires that a registrant report a change of address in writing.

The appellant claims that he need not follow the regulation controlling any change of address by a registrant under the Selective Service Act. The appellant claims, and it is recorded in his file, that a phone call was made reporting a change in his home address, but there is no indication in his selective service file who made or received the call and no other evidence on this point was offered by either side.

The Court must accept the agency’s construction of its own regulation if it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation, Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413-414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed 1700; Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-17 , 85 S.Ct. 792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1964).

The logic behind the appellant’s arguments creates a heads-appellant wins, tails-Government loses rationale. No doubt, if the defendant’s Selective Service Board had sent the notice to report for physical examination to the address telephoned-in, he would then claim a defect in his induction procedure, because the change was not made by him in writing in accordance with the regulation.

The reason for the requirement that any change in address must be in writing under the appellant’s signature is a sound one. When one eligible for draft registers, he gives his mailing address under his own signature. Any change in such a written document should also be done in writing in the same manner as the original, then the Board can rely that the change comes from the registrant and the registrant is aware where his mail will be going as a matter of record. The obligation is on the registrant to keep the local Board properly advised of his current home address.

Appellant was subsequently ordered to appear for induction. There is no question but that this order was received. His refusal to be inducted was without legal cause or excuse; he was duly convicted. The other issues raised by defendant all stem from the claimed invalidity of the order to report for induction and are therefore without merit.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

1

. The notice is the one bringing into play 32 C.F.R. 1631.7(a), which reads:

“ * * * When a registrant classified in Class I-A * * * has refused or otherwise failed to comply with an order of his local board to report for and submit to an armed forces physical examination, he may be selected and ordered to report for induction even though he has not been found acceptable.”

How later courts describe this case

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

1973: 31977: 21979: 21983: 119732026peak 1973 · 3

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965) 2,632
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) 1,312
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) 1,402

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