*1 BROWN, Before JOHN R. Chief MORGAN, Judge, and and GOLDBERG Judges.
Circuit
PER CURIAM: Rehearing as Har-
The Petition for to old Pickle is denied and no of member Caughlan, (argued) Seattle, John Judge regular panel this in active nor Wash., appellant. for having requested service on the Court Giere, Atty., rehearing polled Asst. that the en Thomas P. U. S. Court be on (argued) Atty., banc, (Rule Appel- Barnes, Asst. U. S. Federal Rules of Susan 35 Seattle, Wash., Pitkin, Atty., Procedure; late Stan U. S. Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) appellee. Rehearing for for En the Petition Banc is denied. MERRILL, and BROWNING Before Judges. KILKENNY, Circuit
PER CURIAM: appeal of is from conviction This taken report into induction the failure to for States, a United Forces of the Armed 462(a). U.S.C.App. 50 of § violation respecting the manner Issues are raised America, UNITED STATES of objec- appellant’s conscientious Plaintiff-Appellee, in which by local and the tion claim was handled v. ability appellant’s to appeal and boards NEWLON, Norman Arthur Defendant- matter. judicial of that review secure Appellant. judg- our In need not reach. These we No. 71-2393. by compelled v. Fisher is ment reversal Appeals, of United States Court (9th States, Cir. 1034 F.2d 413 United Circuit. Ninth States, 1969). v. United also See Graves 27, April 1972. (9th 1958). 878 Cir. 252 F.2d knowing for Appellant was indicted 11, report or about March “on failure to his from absence of his 1968.” Because his receive place he did not of residence a few report until on that date to order Fisher, supra, days date. Under after the is date ordered report on the failure to knowing circumstances. in these not Reversed.
1269 *2 Judge KILKENNY, (dissent- Circuit
ing) : finding guilt by
Normally, the of the judge jury, a of a would
trial after waiver against of a defend- resolve all issues fact judge Here, however, trial was ant. the only issues of law were
of the belief that record, re- I would
before this On him. judge trial mand with directions to the finding specific the truth
to a on make appellant’s not
of claim that he did report after the the to until
receive notice Strangely enough, this induction date. appellant did and was not raised issue pronounce- testify until after first
not the guilt. fact, the further That and
ment of mailed on Febru- was fact that the order along 1968, to ary 6, instructions with following 11th,
report March on the appellant,
coupled of the failure with notice, in- to follow after he received the his notify of the board structions and veracity grave the
problem, on cast doubt testimony.
of his do not
Appellant’s contentions other
warrant discussion. Y., Brackley, Brooklyn,
Albert N. J. appellant. for Atty. Trager, David Asst. U. S. G. (Robert Morse, Atty. E. A. S. for the U. York), appellee. of New for D. VITI. John In re Thomas 695, Docket 72-1254. No. KAUFMAN, Before and ANDERSON Judges. MANSFIELD, Circuit Appeals, of Court United States Circuit. Second May 4, PER CURIAM: Submitted 1972. subpoenaed Viti was to Thomas John May 30,
Decided 1972. grand jury. testify He before a federal although questions he refused to answer Judge granted immunity” by was “use 201(a) pursuant the of Weinstein to § Organized Act of 1970 Crime Control Accordingly, (“Act”), 18 U.S.C. 6002. § adjudged February 8, 1972, on Viti was by Judge pre- contempt in Costantino as by 301(a) Act, the 28 scribed of U.S. § the sec- C. contends that 1826. Viti § abridge unconstitutionally his fifth tions against privilege self-incrim- amendment granted immunity ination because the