Opinion

United States v. Howell Rayful Brown, A/K/A Howell Brown

  • 436 F.2d 1317
  • 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12347
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Filed
Jan 15, 1971
Status
Published
Author
Aldisert
On the bench
Seitz, Van Dusen Adams, Hastie, Freedman, Van Dusen, Aldisert, Adams, Gibbons, Rosenn
Cited by
9 cases

The opinion

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

While I join in the dissenting opinion of Judge VAN DUSEN, I add that I am not persuaded that Regulation 1626.23 requires the appeal board to do what Regulation 1625.2 requires the registrant to do, namely, to present “written information presenting facts not considered when the registrant was classified” to the local board. As I read Regulation 1626.23 the appeal board is required to return the record to the local board only (1) if steps have been omitted by the local board, (2) if the record is incomplete before the appeal board, or (3) if the information is not sufficient to enable the appeal board to determine the classification of the registrant. I do not see any of these circumstances present in the case at bar. Circuit Judge VAN DUSEN joins in this expression.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.