Filed: Apr. 11, 1972
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 456 F.2d 1311 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joel Mark DE SMET, Appellant. No. 71-2811. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 11, 1972. Joel Shawn (argued), of Lukes & Bassoni, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Stephen E. Clark (argued), of Athearn, Chandler, & Hoffman, James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before CHAMBERS and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge. PER CURIAM: 1 The judgment of convi
Summary: 456 F.2d 1311 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joel Mark DE SMET, Appellant. No. 71-2811. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 11, 1972. Joel Shawn (argued), of Lukes & Bassoni, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Stephen E. Clark (argued), of Athearn, Chandler, & Hoffman, James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before CHAMBERS and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge. PER CURIAM: 1 The judgment of convic..
More
456 F.2d 1311
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Joel Mark DE SMET, Appellant.
No. 71-2811.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
April 11, 1972.
Joel Shawn (argued), of Lukes & Bassoni, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Stephen E. Clark (argued), of Athearn, Chandler, & Hoffman, James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
The judgment of conviction in this selective service case is affirmed.
2
We decide here that if there was some irregularity in the "call" process, there is no evidence of prejudice to De Smet.
3
However, we reject the contention that there was irregularity in the "calling."
