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, Plaintiff-appellee, v. David Alan Duarte, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 469 F.2d 90
Sept. 19, 1972
Stephen Adams (argued), of Adams & Adams, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Chester G. Moore, III, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Frederic F. Tilton, Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and MOORE,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of conviction in this selective service case is affirmed.
We find that the board clerk in ordering defendant to report for induction did not usurp the function of the board. The board was entitled to proceed pursuant to Local Board Memorandum No. 106. When Duarte's notice to report for a pre-induction physical examination went out, it was accompanied by a notice that failure to report would result in a notice to report for induction. The first notice clearly was a board act. The clerk later followed through in a ministerial way. Hence the clerk did not supersede the board. See United States v. Shunk, 438 F.2d 1204 (9 Cir. 1971).