JAMES EDWARD BARNES, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that failure to exhaust administrative remedies precludes judicial review of a classification, even if the Board's procedure is questioned.
Appellant was convicted for wilful failure to report for induction into the armed forces. He sought reversal, claiming his classification was incorrec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Review Of Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a conviction for wilful failure to report for and submit to induction into the armed forces.1 Appellant seeks reversal on the theory that his classification was incorrect because the Board failed to give him a new classification based on his marriage subsequent to original classification.
It would serve no useful purpose in this case or for guidance in future cases to write at length on the contentions of appellant concerning the right to appeal and the right to have his case reopened. At every stage he failed to exhaust, or even avail himself of, administrative remedies. This precludes judicial review of the validity of his classification. See Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305 (1944); Bjorson v. United States, 272 F. 2d 244 (9th Cir. 1959); United States v. Rumsa, 212 F. 2d 927 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 838, 75 S.Ct. 36, 99 L.Ed. 661 (1954); McGahee v. United States, 163 F. 2d 875 (5th Cir. 1947).
Parenthetically we note that information he furnished the Board, the content of which he claims required the Board to grant him an untimely appeal or to reopen his case though he did not request reopening, itself reveals that He was not entitled to the classification which he says the Board should have given him upon appeal or reopening.
There is no merit to the charge that Board procedure violated substantive due process because after it received the information furnished by appellant the Board did not convene in official and formal hearing and allow him to appear in person. There was nothing for the Board to meet about, no hearing was sought, and no request made for a personal appearance.
After notice to report for induction was issued appellant wrote the Board and for the first time claimed to be a conscientious objector. That claim is not urged on this appeal, so we do not comment on it.
Affirmed.
. 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 462.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryans v. Blackwell, 387 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1967)
-
DuVERNAY v. United States, 394 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1968)
-
LEE v. United States, 400 F.2d 185 (9th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1944)
- United States v. Rumsa, 212 F.2d 927 (7th Cir. 1954)
- Bjorson v. United States, 272 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1959)
- Rumsa v. United States, 348 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1954)
- Redding v. Texas, 348 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1954)
- Jackson v. Sanford, 163 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1947)