United States v. Samir Ibrahim Tantash, 409 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Samir Ibrahim Tantash, 409 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Patrick Carl Gast (ca7, 1972-06-07) · Strongest negative: United States v. Butera (ca1, 1970-01-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Butera
1st Cir. · 1970 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Tantash, 409 F.2d 227, 228 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 968 , 89 S.Ct. 2115 , 23 L.Ed.2d 754 (1969) (statute limiting jury service to those 21 and over held valid). .
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Benjamin J. Butera
1st Cir. · 1970 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Tantash, 409 F.2d 227, 228 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 968 , 89 S.Ct. 2115 , 23 L.Ed.2d 754 (1969) (statute limiting jury service to those 21 and over held valid) 16 School Years Actual "True Completed Jury Pool Cross Section" 1-8 7.0% 36.4% 9-12 54.2% 49.5% 13-16 37.0% 12.4% 17 plus 1.7% 1.7% It should be noted that these figures represent the jury pools for both the Southern and Northern Divisions combined, and the general population of all of Maine; they are not broken down to give statistics for the actual jury pool for the Southern Division and for the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Patrick Carl Gast
7th Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the argument that pre-amended 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b) (1) is unconstitutional because it limited grand jury service to those over 21 years of age was expressly considered and rejected in United States v. McVean, 436 F.2d 1120 , 1122 (5th Cir. 1971); see also United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564 , 570 n. 15; United States v. Tantash, 409 F.2d 227, 228 (9th Cir. 1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hosmer
D. Me. · 1970 · confidence medium
United States v. Tantash, 409 F.2d 227, 228 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 968 , 89 S.Ct. 2115 , 23 L.Ed.2d 754 (1969); Haven v. United States, 403 F.2d 384, 385 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1114 , 89 S.Ct. 926 , 22 L.Ed.2d 120 (1969); United States v. Dicks, 392 F.2d 524, 528 (4th Cir. 1968); Nickerson v. United States, 391 F.2d 760, 762 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 907 , 88 S.Ct. 2061 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1968); United States v. Capson, 347 F.2d 959, 962-963 (10th Cir. 1965); United States v. Mendoza, 295 F.Supp. 673, 683-684 (E.D.N.Y. 1969).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Weller
N.D. Cal. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tantash, supra; Haven, supra. No case cited to the Court by the government or found by this Court has addressed itself to the apparent lack of specific authorization in the Selective Service Act for the denial of counsel before the local boards.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Samir Ibrahim TANTASH, Defendant-Appellant
23383_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 16, 1969.
409 F.2d 227
Morris Futlick (argued), Fresno, Cal., for appellant., Richard Boulger (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., John P. Hyland, U. S. Atty., Fresno, Cal., for appellee.
Madden, Claims, Merrill, Browning.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant stands convicted of refusal to report for and submit to induction into the armed forces. He is a Jordanian alien with minimal familiarity with the English language. In various respects he asserts that he was not afforded sufficient consideration by his local board and the induction authorities. On this appeal he contends that his conviction should be set aside due to his lack of knowledge of his rights and obligations and of the courses open to him. We find no merit in any of his contentions.

[*228] The record establishes that he was fairly processed and received notice of his I-A classification. He made no request for change of classification and the local board is not to be faulted for failing to treat him as though he had.

After his first failure to report for induction a special agent conferred with him to impress upon him the seriousness of his default. He gave no indication of a desire to change his classification but stated that he wished to serve in the armed forces.

After his second failure to report the special agent called to ascertain the reason and explained that he might well be rejected due to his language deficiencies. His response was, “I no go army. If I go induction station and take test and get lucky and pass test, I am in army. Go Viet Nam and get killed. I no go. You want me, you come and get me.”

Appellant was not entitled to be provided with legal assistance in the selective service process. 32 CFR 1624.1(b). We find no error in the instructions. Exclusion of minors from the jury panel did not amount to violation of constitutional rights. George v. United States, 196 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1952).

Judgment affirmed.