Case ID: f2d_451/html/0591-02.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. James Alan FERBER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 71-2349.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Nov. 29, 1971.
    
      James Alan Ferber (argued), John K. Van De Kam, Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
    Joseph H. Golant, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Rom G. Kontos, Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Chief, Crim. Div., Los An-geles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before BROWNING and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and CRAIG, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Walter E. Craig, United States District Judge, for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of refusing induction, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. Appellant’s main contention is that his local board erred in refusing to reopen his I-A classification to consider his conscientious objector claim filed after he received an order to report for induction.

Appellant argues that his claim rested on non-religious grounds, and that, therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970), permitting non-religious conscientious objector claims, was a material “change in status over which he had no control within the meaning of Regulation 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2.”

Welsh was decided before appellant’s induction notice was sent, however, and, under section 1625.2, a change of status must occur after the notice to warrant reopening a registrant's classification. United States v. Van Becker, 438 F.2d 1224, 1225 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773, 774 (9th Cir. 1970). Moreover, appellant’s letter accompanying his conscientious objector questionnaire reflects a prima facie conscientious objector claim under traditional, religiously based, pre-Welsh standards. Welsh therefore worked no change in appellant’s status.

We have carefully considered the remaining points raised by appellant and find them without merit.

Affirmed.