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

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · January 15, 1971 · 436 F.2d 1317

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456426

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. Howell Rayful BROWN, A/K/A Howell Brown, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** January 15, 1971
- **Citations:** 436 F.2d 1317; 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12347
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Aldisert
- **Judges:** Seitz, Van Dusen Adams, Hastie, Freedman, Van Dusen, Aldisert, Adams, Gibbons, Rosenn
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456426

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456426. Public record. Not legal advice.