UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DANA XAVIER HARRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 the appellant failed to provide sufficient facts to justify a change in his classification, thus affirming his conviction.
Appellant was ordered for induction, requested a conscientious objector form, but never returned it and refused induction. He appeals his conviction f…
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 Mulloy V. United States cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from his conviction of violation of the Selective Service Law, after a waiver of jury trial, and was sentenced under the Youth Correction Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b). He was classified I-A on December 17, 1968 and did not appeal. He was ordered to report for preinduction physical and was found fit for induction. On April 18, 1969 he was ordered to report for induction on May 5, 1969. On May 5, 1969 he reported to his Selective Service Board and tendered a note stating that “because of recently changed moral beliefs, I ask for a transfer of this induction so I can fill out form 150.” (Conscientious Objector form) He was given the form but never returned it to the Selective Service Board. He was sent to the Induction Station but refused induction.
Appellant relies upon Mulloy v. United States, 398 U.S. 410, 90 S.Ct. 1766, 26 L.Ed.2d 362. This Court is satisfied that Mulloy is readily distinguishable upon its facts. In Mulloy the petitioner completed Selective Service Form 150 before he was called for induction and attached letters from five people attesting to his honesty and integrity.
We do not reach the issue as to the validity of the regulation found at 32 C. F.R., Section 1625.2, because the appellant failed to provide the Selective Service Board with any facts which, if true, would justify a change in the appellant’s classification. He provided only a statement of a conclusion, unsupported by any facts.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.