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
Ronald L. Wagner, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 403 F.2d 1
Oct. 7, 1968, Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1968
J. B. Tietz (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., Ralph K. Helge, Pasadena, Cal., and G. Bernhard Fedde, Portland, Or., for appellant.
John S. Obenour (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Eugene G. Cushing, U.S. Atty., Tacoma, Wash., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges, and KILKENNY, District judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant is dissatisfied with his Selective Service classification of 1-A.
With one exception, the painstaking and exhaustive decision of the trial judge, D.C., 292 F.Supp. 1 thoroughly analyzes and correctly decides each of the issues argued on appeal. The exception was not raised in the trial court. For that reason, we could brush it aside and refuse to consider inasmuch as we are not convinced that an injustice has been done appellant. Hansberry v. United States, 295 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1961); Beadnell v. United States, 303 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1962); Gilbert v. United States, 307 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied 372 U.S. 969, 83 S.Ct. 1095, 10 L.Ed.2d 132 (1963).
Be that as it may, we have thoroughly examined the Selective Service record and find that appellant's point, first raised in argument, involves a mere clerical error and does not affect the substantial rights of the appellant.
Finding no error, we affirm.