Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Ronald Glen Currier

453 F.2d 1242

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-01-17
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Appellant was convicted after a non-jury trial of refusing induction, thus violating 50 U.S.C. App. 462. He seeks reversal on several grounds; none has validity. He first claims deprivation of due process in failure to properly consider his alleged medical disabilities, homosexuality and high blood pressure. Although he checked the affirmative box next to homosexual at his 1965 examination, he was nevertheless then found qualified, and at his reexamination in 1970 he did not even check this box indicating either recovery from or invalidity of his original claim.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Ronald Glen Currier. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CURRIER,453 F.2d 1242(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RONALD GLEN CURRIER,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 71-1649.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
January 17, 1972.
Martha Goldin (argued), of Saltzman Goldin, Hollywood, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Elgin C. Edwards, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Asst. U.S. Atty. and Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before KOELSCH and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and NIELSEN, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant was convicted after a nonjury trial of refusing induction, thus violating 50 U.S.C. App. 462. He seeks reversal on several grounds; none has validity.

[2] He first claims deprivation of due process in failure to properly consider his alleged medical disabilities, homosexuality and high blood pressure. Although he checked the affirmative box next to homosexual at his 1965 examination, he was nevertheless then found qualified, and at his reexamination in 1970 he did not even check this box indicating either recovery from or invalidity of his original claim. The claim of high blood pressure was not raised below and may not thus be raised on appeal. Morales v. United States,373 F.2d 527Page 1243(9th Cir. 1967). See also United States v. Sowul,447 F.2d 1103(9th Cir. 1971) and United States v. Shunk,438 F.2d 1204(9th Cir. 1971).

[3] Appellant's second claim is that he should have been considered for a ministerial exemption because prior to reporting for induction he left a card with the draft board identifying him as a minister of the Universal Life Church; however, he did nothing further and a registrant mustrequesta new classification. United States v. Wendt,452 F.2d 679(9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Robley, 423 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1970).

[4] The final contention is that Gutknecht v. United States,396 U.S. 295, 90 S.Ct. 506, 24 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970) invalidated Selective Service Regulation § 1642.15 (32 C.F.R. 1642.15) under which he had been sent a continuing duty letter after failing to report for induction in 1968. TheGutknechtdecision wholly fails to support this contention. See United States v. Ritchey,423 F.2d 685(9th Cir. 1970).

[5] Affirmed.Page 1248
  1. Honorable Leland C. Nielsen, United States District Judge, Southern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩