Case ID: f2d_459/html/1031-01.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. Paul Michael WALTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 72-1326.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    May 5, 1972.
    
      Jerry Berg, of Collins, Hays, Stewart, Berg, Pott & Sanford, Inc., San Jose, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
    James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., Chester J. Moore, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appel-lee.
    Before HAMLEY, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Paul Walton appeals from his conviction for refusing to submit to induction, in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. We affirm.

In June 1968, Walton was classified IA. He did not appeal this classification. However, in February 1970, he requested a Form 150 (conscientious-objector application). He completed the form and returned it to his local board on March 3, 1970, with a letter which read: “I would at this time like to place my case on appeal for classification I-O.”

The board rejected the conscientious-objector application June 24, 1970, and notified Walton of his right to appeal within 30 days. He did nothing until September 1970, when he refused induction.

Walton now says that his letter of March 3, 1970, should be treated as a notice of appeal from the board’s decision of June 24, 1970, three months later. We agree with the district court’s refusal to treat an anticipatory letter as a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal after a decision is entitled to liberal construction. A purported notice of appeal in advance of decision is not entitled to any construction. It is a nullity.

Affirmed.