Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Patrick LONGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-07-01
Citations: 445 F.2d 305
Docket Number: No. 26501
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Patrick LONGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 445
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.