From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Duarte

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 19, 1972
469 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 72-1848.

September 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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

The Honorable Leonard P. Moore, Senior Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.


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).


Summaries of

United States v. Duarte

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 19, 1972
469 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

United States v. Duarte

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DAVID ALAN DUARTE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 19, 1972

Citations

469 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

UNITED STATES v. OSSA

Nor can Ossa assert prejudice because others were given a second date for a pre-induction physical and he was…

United States v. Malone

Id. at 819. The court indicated that the board has no discretion not to induct one who fails to appear for…