UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-180

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0575/NA. U.S. v. Malvin L. STEGER. CCA 200300840.

No. 04-0576/NA. U.S. v. Daniel E. BRYANT, Jr. CCA 9901169.

No. 04-0577/AR. U.S. v. Charles P. MILLER, Jr. CCA 20001033.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-179

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

No. 02-0593/AF. U.S. v. Kenneth L. KNIGHT. CCA 34473. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 02-0772/NA. U.S. v. Clyde E. RICHARDSON. CCA 200000047. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY SUSTAINED APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2252 AS HIS PLEAS WERE IMPROVIDENT IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RECENT HOLDING IN ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION.

The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specification 3 of the Charge and the sentence is reversed, but is affirmed in all other respects. The finding of guilty of Specification 3 of the Charge and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals. That Court may either dismiss Specification 3 of the Charge and reassess the sentence based on the affirmed guilty findings or order a rehearing.

    CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part): As to Appellant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A [Specification 3], I dissent for the reasons set forth in Sections A and B of my separate opinion in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 455 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (Crawford, C.J., dissenting). As to Appellant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252 [Specifications 1 and 2], I concur. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 02-0827/AF. U.S. v. Troy S. LOWRANCE. CCA 34996. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL LEGAL ERROR WHEN HE PROVIDED AN INCOMPLETE DEFINITION OF “CHILD PORNOGRAPHY” WHILE INSTRUCTING APPELLANT ON THE ELEMENTS TO THE OFFENSES AND WHETHER APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA TO KNOWINGLY POSSESSING AND TRANSPORTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY MUST BE SET ASIDE.

Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), portions of which were subsequently held to be unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The military judge’s plea inquiry made no reference to those portions, however, and focused Appellant’s attention on the portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional. Appellant’s responses were directed toward the portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional, and there is no basis in law and fact for questioning the providence of his guilty plea. O’Connor, 58 M.J. at 454. The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 03-0255/MC. U.S. v. Christopher L. KITCHEN. CCA 200100456. On consideration of the issue granted review by this Court on July 9, 2003, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 03-0465/AR. U.S. v. Chad E. COOK.  CCA 01-0939. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA UNDER THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT CONSTITUTED A KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR THE MILITARY JUDGE UNDERSTOOD WHAT BEHAVIOR WAS PROSCRIBED BY THE ACT.

    Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), portions of which were subsequently held to be unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The military judge’s plea inquiry made no reference to those portions, however, and focused Appellant’s attention on the portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional. Appellant’s responses were directed towards the portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional, and there is no substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the providence of his guilty plea. O’Connor, 58 M.J. at 454. The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 03-0605/NA. U.S. v. Allen L. DOOLEY.  CCA 99-1020. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING APPELLANT’S CONVICTION BASED ON OVERBROAD AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITIONS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for further action consistent with this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003) A rehearing may be ordered.

    CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v. Thompson, 57 M.J. 319 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (Crawford, C.J., dissenting), and Section A of my separate opinion in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 455 (C.A.A.F. 2003)(Crawford, C.J., dissenting). [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 03-0632/AR. U.S. v. Jeremy L. KLOBERDANZ. CCA 20020999. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that said petition is granted. Appellant pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), portions of which were held to be unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The military judge’s plea inquiry made no reference to those portions and did not otherwise discuss the issue of constitutionality, but instead focused Appellant’s attention on the portions of the statute held to be constitutional in Free Speech Coalition. Appellant’s responses were directed towards the portions of the statute held to be constitutional in Free Speech Coalition and he also stipulated as to the “actual” character of the images of child pornography at issue. O’Connor, 58 M.J. at 454. There is no substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the providence of Appellant’s guilty plea, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 03-0661/MC. U.S. v. Villamor B. HABON. CCA 200200750. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. It is further directed that the promulgating order be corrected to include a summary of the specifications on which Appellant was arraigned as required by R.C.M. 1114(c)(1).

No. 04-0014/NA. U.S. v. James A. HENSON. CCA 200100964. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), said petition is granted. Appellant pleaded guilty under Specification 6 of Charge II to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), portions of which were subsequently held to be unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The military judge’s plea inquiry made no reference to those portions, however, and focused Appellant on the portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional. Appellant’s responses were directed towards the portions of the statute subsequently held to be constitutional, and there is no substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the providence of his guilty plea. O’Connor, 58 M.J. at 454. The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

It is further directed that Specification 7 of Charge II on the promulgating order be corrected to reflect “18 United States Code

§ 2252(a)(2).” [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 04-0162/AR. U.S. v. Kevin B. JERSHUN. CCA 20020571. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), said petition is granted. Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), portions of which were held to be unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The military judge’s plea inquiry made no reference to those portions and did not otherwise discuss the issue of constitutionality, but instead focused Appellant’s attention on the portions of the statute held to be constitutional in Free Speech Coalition. Appellant’s responses were directed toward the portions of the statute held to be constitutional in Free Speech Coalition and he also stipulated as to the “actual” character of the images of child pornography at issue. O’Connor, 58 M.J. at 454. There is no substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the providence of Appellant’s guilty plea, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 04-0189/AR. U.S. v. Lee E. MOON. CCA 20020175. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), said petition is granted. Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), portions of which were held to be unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The military judge’s plea inquiry made no reference to those portions and did not otherwise discuss the issue of constitutionality, but instead focused Appellant’s attention on the portions of the statute held to be constitutional in Free Speech Coalition. Appellant’s responses were directed toward the portions of the statute held to be constitutional in Free Speech Coalition and he also stipulated as to the “actual” character of the images of child pornography at issue. O’Connor, 58 M.J. at 454. There is no substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the providence of Appellant’s guilty plea, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

No. 04-0211/AF. U.S. v. Jerry J. DROEDER. CCA 35100. On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review, and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

WHETHER APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY TO OFFENSES UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 2252A WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE HE HAD AN INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE OFFENSES WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE EXPLAINED THE OFFENSES USING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND OVERBROAD DEFINITIONS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONTAINED IN 18 U.S.C. § 2256.

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for further action consistent with this Court’s decision in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003) A rehearing may be ordered.

    CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): As to Appellant’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2000), I dissent for the reasons set forth in Sections A, B, and C of my separate opinion in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 455 (C.A.A.F. 2003)(Crawford, C.J., dissenting). [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 02-0593/AF. U.S. v. Kenneth L. KNIGHT. CCA 34473. [See also APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 02-0772/NA. U.S. v. Clyde E. RICHARDSON. CCA 200000047. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 02-0827/AF. U.S. v. Troy S. LOWRANCE. CCA 34996. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 03-0465/AR. U.S. v. Chad E. COOK. CCA 01-0939. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 03-0605/NA. U.S. v. Allen L. DOOLEY. CCA 99-1020. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 03-0632/AR. U.S. v. Jeremy L. KLOBERDANZ. CCA 20020999. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 03-0661/MC. U.S. v. Villamor B. HABON. CCA 200200750. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 04-0014/NA. U.S. v. James A. HENSON, Jr. CCA 200100964. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 04-0162/AR. U.S. v. Kevin B. JERSHUN. CCA 20020571. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 04-0189/AR. U.S. v. Lee E. MOON. CCA 20020175. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

No. 04-0211/AF. U.S. v. Jerry J. DROEDER. CCA 35100. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

No. 04-5006/AR. U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER. CCA 9601044. The Judge Advocate General, United States Army, requests that action be taken with respect to the following issue:

WHETHER THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND DENIAL OF A MITIGATION SPECIALIST TO BE PREJUDICIAL ERROR FOR FINDINGS WHEN THE SAME OPINION ALSO FOUND THAT ALL EVIDENCE THE MITIGATION SPECIALIST WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF PRODUCING A DIFFERENT RESULT.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 04-0360/AR. U.S. v. Michael A. SHEFFER. CCA 20030470.

No. 04-0408/AF. U.S. v. Kyle D. JACKSON. CCA S30330.

No. 04-0418/AR. U.S. v. Alan C. KESSLER. CCA 20030052.

No. 04-0437/AR. U.S. v. Kevin R. DUNBAR. CCA 20030229.

No. 04-0447/AR. U.S. v. William C. ENGQUIST. CCA 20040004.

No. 04-0449/AR. U.S. v. Nereida M. OROZCO. CCA 20030135.

No. 04-0453/AR. U.S. v. Brian J. POWELL. CCA 20020096.

No. 04-0455/AF. U.S. v. Troy WARD. CCA 35546.

No. 04-0462/AF. U.S. v. Bryan J. CALVERT. CCA 35617.

No. 04-0478/AF. U.S. v. Abigail K. JOSHUA. CCA 35272.

No. 04-0487/AR. U.S. v. Dustin R. BROCKMILLER. CCA 20031214.

No. 04-0488/AR. U.S. v. Donald R. LEWIS, Jr. CCA 20031097.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

Misc. No. 04-8022/AR. United States, Appellee, v. Mallory K. TATE, Appellant. CCA 20040637. Writ-appeal petition for review of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on June 25, 2004, and placed on the docket this date.

Misc. No. 04-8023/AF. Fernando T. TELLO, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent. Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus was filed under Rule 27(a) on June 14, 2004 and placed on the docket this date.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 00-0679/AR. U.S. v. Jermain J. BEST. CCA 9701222. Appellant's motion to correct errata granted.

No. 04-0470/AR. U.S. v. James H. HILL. CCA 20000208. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including July 7, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 04-0524/AR. U.S. v. John M. ARNOLD. CCA 20010713. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 26, 2004.

MANDATES ISSUED

No. 04-8016/AF. U.S. v. Harry M. SCHMIDT. CCA 2004-01.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-178

Monday, June 28, 2004

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0568/AR. U.S. v. Justin L. HANCOCK. CCA 20031107.

No. 04-0569/AF. U.S. v. Richard S. SOVINE. CCA S30135.

No. 04-0570/AF. U.S. v. Aaron Y. SHIN. CCA 35722.

No. 04-0571/AF. U.S. v. Casey R. JACKS. CCA 35745.

No. 04-0572/AF. U.S. v. Anthony L. GATHERS, II. CCA S30464.

No. 04-0573/AF. U.S. v. Thomas P. HAN. CCA 35697.

No. 04-0574/NA. U.S. v. Nathan A. CROW. CCA 200301105.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 04-0246/AR. U.S. v. Andrew J. KISALA. CCA 20000930. On consideration of the petition for grant of review and the supplement thereto, it is ordered that appellate defense counsel shall within 30 days file an additional supplement addressing the following issue:

WHETHER THE ORDER THAT APPELLANT SUBMIT TO AN ANTHRAX VACCINATION ON AUGUST 24, 2000, WAS A LAWFUL ORDER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THAT TIME.

Counsel representing the Appellee shall file an answer within 30 days after the filing of Appellant’s additional supplement.

MANDATES ISSUED

No. 03-0691/MC. U.S. v. Carson L. ALLEN. CCA 9800849.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-177

Friday, June 25, 2004

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0566/NA. U.S. v. Thomas J. WELLS. CCA 200000145.

No. 04-0567/AF. U.S. v. Ronald L. BREWER. CCA 34936.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-176

Thursday, June 24, 2004

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 98-0497/NA. U.S. v. Charles W. DAVIS. CCA 9600585. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY DETERMINED AFTER THE DUBAY HEARING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING SENTENCING.

No. 04-0218/MC. U.S. v. Paul A. RICHARDSON. CCA 200101917. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION DURING VOIR DIRE BY APPLYING AN "ACTUAL BIAS" STANDARD TO DENY THE DEFENSE'S THREE "IMPLIED BIAS" CHALLENGES AND BY PREVENTING THE DEFENSE FROM FULLY DEVELOPING THE FACTS TO SUPPORT THE CHALLENGES TO MEMBERS WHO WERE OR HAD BEEN TRIAL COUNSEL'S CLIENTS.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 02-0505/AF. U.S. v. Daniel J. MCDOWELL. CCA 34448.

No. 04-0206/AR. U.S. v. Anthony R. RUDD, Sr. CCA 20000886.

No. 04-0212/AR. U.S. v. Dennis S. MURPHY. CCA 20010654.

No. 04-0279/AF. U.S. v. Chardon J. BLACK. CCA S30089.

No. 04-0364/MC. U.S. v. Jody M. SMITH. CCA 200102167.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0564/AR. U.S. v. Johnathan P. OLENSKI. CCA 20021174.

No. 04-0565/MC. U.S. v. Gary D. BURCHETT. CCA 200200121.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-175

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 04-0457/AF. U.S. v. Thomas J. MASIERO. CCA 35623.

No. 04-0512/AR. U.S. v. Lance D. SHAFFER. CCA 20031025.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

No. 04-0452/NA. U.S. v. Stephen L. SCHMIDT. CCA 200202395. Appellant’s motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0562/NA. U.S. v. Walter A. SAGASTUME. CCA 200301422.

No. 04-0563/AF. U.S. v. Wayne G. AUGSPURGER. CCA S30222.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

Misc. No. 04-8012/NA. United States, Appellee, v. Roscoe DAVIS, III, Appellant. CCA 200301710. Writ-appeal petition denied without prejudice to Appellant’s right to raise the matter asserted in the petition during the course of normal appellate review.

Misc. No. 04-8017/NA. United States, Appellee, v. William C. BRAGG, Appellant. CCA 200400096. Writ-appeal petition denied without prejudice to Appellant’s right to raise the matter asserted in the petition during the course of normal appellate review. Appellant’s motion for stay of proceedings denied.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 04-0502/AR. U.S. v. Tommie M. MARTIN. CCA 9400504. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 21, 2004.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-174

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0561/AR. U.S. v. James K. STEWART. CCA 20031309.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-173

Monday, June 21, 2004

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 04-0250/AR. U.S. v. Jonathan G. SCALO. CCA 20020624. Review granted on the following issue specified by the Court:

WHETHER THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING THAT THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S FAILURE TO ADVISE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY OF THE NATURE AND DURATION OF APPELLANT'S PRETRIAL RESTRAINT DID NOT CONSTITUTE PREJUDICIAL ERROR.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0559/AR. U.S. v. Richard C. BRESNAHAN. CCA 20010304.

No. 04-0560/AR. U.S. v. Enrique FLORES-RIVERA Jr. CCA 20010505.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 04-0310/AF. U.S. v. Michael A. VAN BIBBER. CCA S30119. Appellant's motion to submit documents denied.

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-172

Friday, June 18, 2004

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 04-0410/AF. U.S. v. Jacob L. LEMLEY. CCA S30480.

No. 04-0426/AF. U.S. v. Steven R. MASON. CCA S30173.

No. 04-0440/AR. U.S. v. Ryan L. NEVIS. CCA 20020906.

No. 04-0446/AR. U.S. v. Wayne A. HAUBERT. CCA 20020940.

No. 04-0448/AR. U.S. v. Demetric D. SHAW. CCA 20021333.

No. 04-0450/AR. U.S. v. Daniel M. ROSNEY. CCA 20020660.

No. 04-0451/AR. U.S. v. Kenneth D. MULLINS II. CCA 20030756.

No. 04-0459/AF. U.S. v. Steven C. DESKINS. CCA 35701.

No. 04-0463/AF. U.S. v. Patrick E. CHAFFIN. CCA S30350.

No. 04-0467/AF. U.S. v. Hector SANDOVAL. CCA 35594.

No. 04-0468/AF. U.S. v. Angela L. RANDOLPH. CCA 35693.

No. 04-0477/NA. U.S. v. Joseph B. MARINI. CCA 200100877.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 04-0553/NA. U.S. v. Michael A. SCALES. CCA 200301234.

No. 04-0554/NA. U.S. v. Timothy R. STRANGE. CCA 200301747.

No. 04-0555/AF. U.S. v. Christopher D. DEISHER. CCA 35143.

No. 04-0556/AF. U.S. v. Benjamin J. GIEM. CCA 35277.

No. 04-0557/AF. U.S. v. Samuel D. MIRACLE. CCA 35002.

No. 04-0558/AF. U.S. v. Whitney G. SMITH. CCA