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
Wendell Asbury Bruce, Jr., Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 448 F.2d 21
September 9, 1971
Jack F. McGuinn, Columbia, S. C., on the brief for appellant.
John K. Grisso, U. S. Atty., and Marvin L. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief for appellee.
Before BRYAN, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Wendell Asbury Bruce, Jr., is appealing from his conviction, 322 F. Supp. 363, for refusing to report for physical examination and induction in violation of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C. Appendix, Section 462. After a review of the record and upon consideration of appellee's motion for summary affirmance and appellant's motion for summary reversal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary and deny both motions. We think the case should be remanded to the District Court for a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether Bruce's order to report for induction was illegally accelerated by reason of his delinquency as forbidden by Gutknecht v. United States, 396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L. Ed.2d 532 (1970).
Our disposition is grounded upon evidence in the record of possible illegal acceleration notwithstanding the stipulation between counsel to the contrary. It appears that the District Court was deprived of a full exploration of the acceleration issue by this stipulation. Nor did the District Court have the benefit of United States v. Dobie, 444 F.2d 417 (4 Cir. 1971), which held that in light of Gutknecht, supra, the Government must carry the burden of proving the registrant's induction was not accelerated. Although not conclusive, the evidence here indicates that Bruce's name appeared on the delivery list for October 6, 1969 under the heading "Delinquent — For Immediate Induction", and his name was listed out of order on a separate sheet.
In view of our disposition of the case, we do not consider appellant's other assignments of error.
Vacated and remanded.