United States v. Gary Richard Tigerman

Appellant, Gary Richard Tigerman, appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of violation of 50 U.S.C.App. § 462. Appellant attacks his conviction on three grounds: (1) That there was no basis in fact for the local selective service board’s finding that he was insincere *55 in his conscientious objector claim; (2) That the board acted improperly in refusing to allow witnesses to appear in his behalf; and (3) That the induction order was improperly signed by a member of a panel other than the one to which his classification had been assigned.

Appellant registered on January 11, 1966, indicating his occupation to be a student. Appellant’s completed classification questionnaire was received by the local board on March 22, 1966; he made no claim of conscientious objector status in the space provided (Series VIII, SSS Form 100). Appellant did state on the questionnaire that he had previously attempted to enlist in the Air Force but was found to have been underweight.

Appellant, on March 10, 1967, filed with the board SSS Form 150, Special Form for Conscientious Objector, wherein he asserted a belief in a Supreme Being; appellant related his general Christian Science upbringing,…

Unlike my brothers, I do not find in this record any inconsistencies in state *57 ments made by appellant which relevantly bear on the question of insincerity, nor any other basis for a determination of insincerity sufficient under Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 , 74 S.Ct. 152 , 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953).

Accordingly, I would reverse.

456 F.2d 54 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Richard TIGERMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-1576. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 13, 1971. Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1972. J. B. Tietz (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. John M. Newman, Jr. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before MERRILL and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: 1 Appellant, Gary Richard Tigerman, appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of violation of 50 U.S.C.App. Sec. 462. Appellant attacks his conviction on three grounds: (1) That there was no basis in fact for the local selective service board's finding that he was insincere in his conscientious objector claim; (2) That the board acted improperly in refusing to allow witnesses to appear in his behalf; and (3) That the induction order was improperly signed by a member of a panel other than the one to which his classification had been assigned. 2 Appellant registered on January 11, 1966, indicating his occupation to be a student. Appellant's completed classification questionnaire was received by the local board on March 22,…