TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Klotz

UNITED STATES v. Mark David Albert KLOTZ

United States v. Klotz, 503 F.2d 1056 (8th Cir. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 1, 1974
Docket
No. 74-1069
Citations
503 F.2d 1056

On Rehearing

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM.

In a petition for rehearing the Government has called the court’s attention to 50 U.S.C. App. § 465(a) (1970). The section provides:

(a) Every person shall be deemed to have notice of the requirements of this title upon publication by the President of a proclamation or other public notice fixing a time for any registration under section 3 [50 U.S. C. App. § 453], 1

The Government asserts that by operation of this section of the Selective Service Act it was relieved of the burden of proving that defendant knowingly failed to register under 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a). We need not decide the correctness of this interpretation, for, in point of fact, the Government tried its case and briefed the appeal' without in any way relying upon this section of the statute. It can not now, after failing to prevail on its original theories, invoke an entirely new theory in support of conviction.

Had the Government proceeded to trial in reliance on this section, the defendant may very well have made a different election in the presentation of his defense, choosing instead, for example, to take the stand. Moreover, had the Government raised this section on appeal, the defendant could have prepared a reply for the court’s consideration. As it is, the petition has all the appearances of an afterthought.

Because the Government’s resort to 50 U.S.C. App. § 465(a) is not timely, we have no occasion to consider its application to the conviction before us. See Carr v. FTC, 302 F.2d 688, 691-692 (1st Cir. 1962). Accordingly, the petition is denied.

ROSS and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges would grant a rehearing en banc.

. Seven proclamations, beginning with Proclamation No. 2799, July 20, 1948, 13 Fed. Reg. 4173 , 62 Stat. 1531 , have been issued by the President pursuant to this section.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11978: 11997: 12010: 12014: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Robert Ronald Boucher509 F.2d 991 (8th Cir. 1975)
  2. Angela Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co760 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2014)
  3. United States v. Arthur Fred Barela571 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1978)
  4. Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky606 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2010)
  5. Bobby Lee Malady v. United States120 F.3d 119 (8th Cir. 1997)

Most recent

  1. Angela Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co760 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2014)
  2. Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky606 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2010)
  3. Bobby Lee Malady v. United States120 F.3d 119 (8th Cir. 1997)
  4. United States v. Arthur Fred Barela571 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1978)
  5. United States v. Robert Ronald Boucher509 F.2d 991 (8th Cir. 1975)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Carr v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 302 F.2d 688 (1st Cir. 1962) 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