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
United States of America, Appellee, v. Brian Alan O'riley, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 459 F.2d 53
March 8, 1972
Neil F. Horton (argued), of Johnston, Klein, Horton & Solomon, Oakland, Cal., for appellant.
Michael W. Field, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), F. Steele Langford, Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLIN, DUNIWAY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from a conviction under 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 462 for refusal to submit to induction, the defendant asserts two grounds for voiding his order to report for induction into the Armed Services. Neither ground justifies reversal.
First, the defendant mounts a collateral attack upon the order of call during each of the five months preceding his order. He asserts that the cumulative effect of overcalls in prior months resulted in a distortion in the number of selectees needed during the month in which he was ordered to report. We find no substantive difference between this case and that of the defendant whose conviction was affirmed in United States v. Howells, 452 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1971).
The defendant also asserts that he should not have been called, because he was a student. He became a student after he had received an order to report for induction and after he had requested and received a postponement in order to pay his debts. Reclassification of registrants under such circumstances was not what Congress contemplated in providing for 1-S deferments. McLain v. Selective Service Local Board No. 47, 439 F.2d 737 (8th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.