Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Francisco Mendoza-martinez, Appellant, v. Argyle R. Mackey, Commissioner of Immigration Andnaturalization and Herbert Brownell, Attorneygeneral of the United States, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 238 F.2d 239
Nov. 2, 1956
Vincent P. DiGiorgio, DiGiorgio & Davis, Bakersfield, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Max F. Deutz, James R. Dooley, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before BONE, ORR and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Mendoza-Martinez appeals from an adverse judgment in an action for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Northern Division.
Appellant departed the United States in 1942 for Mexico and remained there until 1946. Upon his return to the United States, he was convicted for draft evasion under 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311.1 While in custody, appellant was arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for illegal entry; the warrant alleged expatriation under Sec. 401(j) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1168 (1940), as amended by 58 Stat. 746 (1944).2 The statute provided, in substance, for loss of United States nationality by departing from or remaining outside United States jurisdiction during a national emergency for the purpose of evading or avoiding military service.
After exhausting administrative remedies, appellant brought this action for declaratory relief. Appellant's sole contention is that Sec. 401(j) is unconstitutional. This Court has twice held said section to be constitutional; on authority of Gonzalez v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 955, reversed on other grounds 350 U.S. 920, 76 S.Ct. 210, and Vidales v. Brownell, 9 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 136, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.