The opinion
On Petition of Appellee for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
By way of answer to the Government’s argument based on Bowles v. United States, 319 U.S. 33 , 63 S.Ct. 912 , 87 L.Ed. 1194 , counsel for appellant relies chiefly on the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 , 66 S.Ct.423, 90 L.Ed. 567 . That case permitted the defendant in a criminal prosecution such as this to attack the determina *641 tion of a local draft board on the ground that it exceeded its jurisdiction even though the Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 310(a) (2), declares local board decisions to be final except for administrative appeal. Counsel argues persuasively that the same limitation on the word “final” should he applied to the finality accorded presidential determinations by 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 460(b) (3). The Estep opinion does not even mention the Bowles case. If there be any inconsistency between them, we shall, until otherwise, instructed, follow the later authority. The petition for rehearing is denied.