UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROLAND ROSCOE COOPER, APPELLANT

3d Cir. | 1955-06-16
No. 11501
223 F.2d 448 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1955)

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.


Holding

The court held that the appellant was improperly convicted because he did not receive a copy of the Department of Justice's recommendation to the Appeal Board.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted for refusing induction into the Armed Services. He claimed lack of procedural due process. The Supreme Court subsequently rule…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for refusal to submit to induction in the Armed Services. 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 462(a) (1952). The appellant claims lack of “procedural due process” in the steps that were taken, or failed to be taken, leading up to his order for induction. On all this we find nothing which is grounds for appeal under our decision in United States v. Hagaman, 3 Cir., 1954, 213 F. 2d 86. So far as the appellant’s case as outlined in his brief is concerned we should unanimously affirm.

But since the judgment of the district court was entered and the appeal was taken and briefs filed in this case, the Supreme Court has decided a group of cases dealing with liability of accused persons who have refused to be inducted in the Armed Services. The decision in point here is Gonzales v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 407, 75 S.Ct. 409, 410. In that case the majority of the Supreme Court decided the question whether the petitioner “was entitled to receive a copy of the recommendation made by the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board under the provisions of § 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 612, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. § 456 (j).”

The majority decided that question in the affirmative. What Gonzales was entitled to, Cooper was entitled to. He did not receive the report above described. He is, therefore, according to this last ruling by the Supreme Court, improperly-convicted.

The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded with directions to order judgment for the defendant.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw