UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
SAMIR IBRAHIM TANTASH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that the appellant's conviction for refusing induction was valid, as he was fairly processed and not entitled to legal assistance.
Appellant, a Jordanian alien with limited English, was convicted of refusing induction into the armed forces. He failed to report twice and expressed …
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.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant stands convicted of refusal to report for and submit to induction into the armed forces. He is a Jordanian alien with minimal familiarity with the English language. In various respects he asserts that he was not afforded sufficient consideration by his local board and the induction authorities. On this appeal he contends that his conviction should be set aside due to his lack of knowledge of his rights and obligations and of the courses open to him. We find no merit in any of his contentions. The record establishes that he was fairly processed and received notice of his I-A classification. He made no request for change of classification and the local board is not to be faulted for failing to treat him as though he had.
After his first failure to report for induction a special agent conferred with him to impress upon him the seriousness of his default. He gave no indication of a desire to change his classification but stated that he wished to serve in the armed forces.
After his second failure to report the special agent called to ascertain the reason and explained that he might well be rejected due to his language deficiencies. His response was, “I no go army. If I go induction station and take test and get lucky and pass test, I am in army. Go Viet Nam and get killed. I no go. You want me, you come and get me.”
Appellant was not entitled to be provided with legal assistance in the selective service process. 32 CFR 1624.1(b). We find no error in the instructions. Exclusion of minors from the jury panel did not amount to violation of constitutional rights. George v. United States, 196 F. 2d 445 (9th Cir. 1952).
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564 (1st Cir. 1970)
-
United States v. Duncan, 456 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Gast, 457 F.2d 141 (7th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- George v. United States, 196 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1952)