Case ID: f2d_445/html/0305-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Patrick LONGO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 26501.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    July 1, 1971.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1971.
    
      Martha Goldin (argued), Hollywood, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
    David Fox, Asst. U. S. Atty., (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., John W. Hornbeck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los An-geles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before BARNES, MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

1. Appellant’s I-A classification is not subject to contest here. No appeal from that classification was taken. Appellant was thus under a duty to report for induction in response to the board’s original order. See McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 192-201, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969).

2. Appellant’s appearance four hours late did not constitute compliance with that order. Accordingly he was thereafter under a continuing duty to report. See 32 C.F.R. § 1632.14.

3. No delay in subsequent issuance of report orders was in excess of 120 days, so as to amount to an implied revocation of the original order to report. See 32 C.F.R. § 1632.2; see also United States v. Stevens, 438 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1971).

4. Appellant’s dependency claim, advanced after he was ordered to report, did not present a prima facie case of a change of circumstances beyond his control. See 32 C.F.R. § 1625.-2; United States v. Hulphers, 421 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1969).

5. We find no error in instructions.

Affirmed.