DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-243
Thursday,
September 30, 2004
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 03-0518/MC. U.S. v. Teon E.
JACKSON.
CCA
200001671.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Jenkins,
60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004), it is ordered that said petition is granted
on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM
REPLICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT AS THE COURT'S
OPINION
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for a new review
pursuant
to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)
(2000),
before a panel comprised of judges who have not previously participated
in this
case. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 03-0538/MC. U.S. v. Nathan T.
OTTO.
CCA
200001460.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Jenkins,
60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004), it is ordered that said petition is granted
on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM
REPLICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER BRIEF AS THAT COURT'S
OPINION
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for a new review
pursuant
to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)
(2000),
before a panel comprised of judges who have not previously participated
in this
case. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 03-0588/NA. U.S. v. Antoinette
VANDERBILT.
CCA
200000487.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Jenkins,
60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004), it is ordered that said petition is granted
on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM
REPLICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER BRIEF AS THAT COURT'S
OPINION
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for a new review
pursuant
to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)
(2000),
before a panel comprised of judges who have not previously participated
in this
case. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 03-0591/NA. U.S. v. Thomas N.
CREAM.
CCA
200200962.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Jenkins,
60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004), it is ordered that said petition is granted
on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM
REPLICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER BRIEF AS THAT COURT'S
OPINION
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for a new review
pursuant
to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)
(2000),
before a panel comprised of judges who have not previously participated
in this
case. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 04-0069/MC. U.S. v. David Y.
OWENS.
CCA
200200427.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article
66(c), Uniform
Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a panel
comprised
of judges who have not previously participated in this case.
No. 04-0219/MC. U.S. v. Scipio J.
WILLIAMS.
CCA
200101854.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Jenkins,
60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004), it is ordered that said petition is granted
on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM
REPLICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT AS THE COURT'S
OPINION
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for a new review
pursuant
to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)
(2000),
before a panel comprised of judges who have not previously participated
in this
case. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 04-0350/MC. U.S. v. Whitman D.
WALLACE.
CCA
200001148.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Jenkins,
60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004), it is ordered that said petition is granted
on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM
REPLICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT AS THE COURT'S
OPINION
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for a new review
pursuant
to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)
(2000),
before a panel comprised of judges who have not previously participated
in this
case. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 04-0372/MC. U.S. v. Jeremy D.
THOMPSON.
CCA
200101956.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our recent decision in United States v.
Jenkins,
60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004), it is ordered that said petition is granted
on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM
REPLICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT AS THE COURT'S
OPINION
CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.
The decision of
the United
States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for a new review
pursuant
to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)
(2000),
before a panel comprised of judges who have not previously participated
in this
case. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 04-0442/AF. U.S. v. Christopher
P. MOFFEIT.
CCA
35159.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals, 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
CONVICTION FOR RECEIVING AND POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY UNDER 18
U.S.C. §
2252A MUST BE SET ASIDE.
The decision of
the United
States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals as to Specifications 1 and 2
of the
Charge and the sentence is reversed, but is affirmed in all other
respects. The findings of guilty of
Specifications 1 and 2 of the Charge and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal
Appeals. That court may either dismiss
Specifications 1 and 2 of the Charge and reassess the sentence based on
the
affirmed guilty findings or order a rehearing.
[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief
Judge (dissenting): I dissent from the
order setting aside
Specifications 1 and 2 of the Charge for the reasons set forth in my
separate
opinion in United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 455
(C.A.A.F. 2003)
(Crawford, C.J., dissenting).
No. 04-0464/AF. U.S. v. Tracy L.
DAVIDSON.
CCA
34911.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals, 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. 04-0491/AR. U.S. v. Fabian G.
PEREZ.
CCA
20011030.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals, and
in light of our decision in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J.
___
(Daily Journal July 21, 2004), it is ordered that said petition is
granted on
the following specified issue:
WHETHER THE
UNITED STATES
ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE
66(c),
UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND
WAS
GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.
The decision of
the United
States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening authority’s
action are
set aside. The record of trial is
returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to a
convening authority
for a new action in light of this Court’s decision in United States
v.
Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief
Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the
reasons set forth in my
dissenting opinion in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___
(Daily
Journal July 21, 2004) (Crawford, C.J., dissenting).
No. 04-0509/AF. U.S. v. Robert L.
SEITTER.
CCA
34973.
On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals, and in light of our decision in United States v. Lajaunie,
___
M.J. ___ (Daily Journal July 21, 2004), it is ordered that said
petition is
granted on the following issue:
WHETHER
THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS
AUTHORITY
UNDER ARTICLE 66(c) UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT WAS NOT CORRECT
IN LAW
AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE
CONVENING
AUTHORITY.
The decision of
the United
States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening
authority’s action
are set aside. The record of trial is
returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to a
convening authority for a new action in light of this Court’s decision
in United
States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
CRAWFORD, Chief
Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the
reasons set forth in my
dissenting opinion in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___
(Daily
Journal July 21, 2004) (Crawford, C.J., dissenting).
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 03-0518/MC. U.S. v. Teon
E. JACKSON. CCA 200001671.
[See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 03-0538/MC. U.S. v. Nathan
T. OTTO. CCA 200001460.
[See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 03-0588/NA. U.S. v.
Antoinette VANDERBILT. CCA
200000487. [See
also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 03-0591/NA. U.S. v. Thomas
N. CREAM. CCA 200200962. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 04-0219/MC. U.S. v. Scipio
J. WILLIAMS. CCA 200101854.
[See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 04-0350/MC. U.S. v.
Whitman D. WALLACE. CCA
200001148. [See
also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 04-0372/MC. U.S. v. Jeremy
D. THOMPSON. CCA 200101956. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 04-0442/AF. U.S. v.
Christopher P. MOFFEIT. CCA
35159. [See
also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 04-0464/AF. U.S. v. Tracy
L. DAVIDSON. CCA 34911.
[See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 04-0491/AR. U.S. v. Fabian
G. PEREZ. CCA 20011030.
[See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 04-0509/AF. U.S. v. Robert
L. SEITTER. CCA 34973.
[See also APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT
OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0339/NA.
U.S. v. Robert
J. CROSS.
CCA 200101055.
No. 04-0602/NA.
U.S. v. Hector
CAMARILLO Jr.
CCA 200301464.*/
PETITIONS FOR GRANT
OF REVIEW FILED
No. 04-0801/MC.
U.S. v. Jemima
HARVEY.
CCA 200001040.
No. 04-0802/MC.
U.S. v. Ladine
DANIELS.
CCA 200400010.
____________
*/
It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected
to
reflect that Appellant was found guilty of the Specification of the
Charge by
exceptions and substitutions in accordance with his pleas.
--------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT
by the
CLERK OF THE COURT
of the
CUMULATIVE SUMMARY OF
COURT WORKLOAD STATISTICS
FOR THE OCTOBER 2004 TERM OF
COURT
I.
CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2003
Master Docket ..............................
49
Petition Docket ............................ 171
Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 4
TOTAL ......................................
224
ii. CUMULATIVE FILINGS
Master Docket .............................. 136
Petition Docket ............................ 802
Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 29
TOTAL ......................................
967
III. CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS
Master Docket .............................. 134
Petition Docket ............................ 758
Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 27
TOTAL ......................................
919
IV. CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2004
Master Docket ..............................
51*/
Petition Docket ............................ 215
Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 6
TOTAL ......................................
272
___
*/ Comparative Master
Docket figures for
the past 10 years are: 49 (FY03); 50 (FY02); 60 (FY01); 70 (FY00); 77
(FY99);
105 (FY98); 289 (FY97); 73 (FY96); 105 (FY95); 119 (FY94).
V.
CASES ON MASTER DOCKET
CARRIED OVER TO
OCTOBER 2005
TERM OF COURT
AWAITING ORAL ARGUMENT OR
FINAL DISPOSITION (40)
98-0497/NA - DAVIS
00-0679/AR - BEST
02-0623/AR - MARTINELLI
03-0223/AF - DEES
03-0256/AR – BOWLEY
03-0270/AF – POLFLIET, Jr.
03-0293/AF - MARTENS
03-0382/AR - BALDWIN
03-0454/AF - ALLEN
03-0589/AR - BODIN
03-0635/MC - HALL
03-0638/CG - DATZ
03-0646/AR - FARLEY
03-0647/AR - LEAK
03-0655/MC - STROTHER
03-0694/AR - SHELTON
04-0042/AR - MEGHDADI
04-0081/AF - SCHEURER
04-0119/AF - WARNER
04-0120/AR - LITTERAL
04-0140/AR - ASBURY
04-0145/AF - REEVES
04-0208/AR – WILLIAMS, Jr.
04-0216/AF - KEY
04-0217/AF – ISRAEL, Jr.
04-0218/MC - RICHARDSON
04-0238/AF - HARRIS
04-0240/AR - BERRY
04-0241/AF – MOSES
04-0250/AR - SCALO
04-0252/AR - BODKINS
04-0284/AF – JAMES
04-0291/AR - CANO
04-0295/AR - McNUTT
04-0340/MC - BAIER
04-0348/AR – BROOKS
04-0382/AF - MIZGALA
04-5002/AF - CARTER
04-5004/AR – SINGLETON
04-5006/AR - KREUTZER
AWAITING BRIEFS (11)
03-0568/AR - BILLINGS
03-0678/AR - STEBBINS
04-0178/AR – SAINTAUDE, Jr.
04-0359/AR - SHELTON
04-0392/AF – GRIGGS
04-0433/AF - STARGELL
04-0465/AF - FLETCHER
04-0480/AF - SONEGO
04-0540/AF - BARRIER
04-5005/NA - FORBES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
04-242
Wednesday,
September 29, 2004
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 03-0403/NA. U.S. v. Robert F.
BRINTON.
CCA
200001971.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article
66(c),
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a
panel
comprised of judges who have not previously participated in this case.
No. 03-0515/NA. U.S. v. Thomas J.
SCHNABLE.
CCA
9900852.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article
66(c),
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a
panel
comprised of judges who have not previously participated in this case.
No. 03-0578/NA. U.S. v. Jeffrey B.
MAZER.
CCA
200001655.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article
66(c),
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a
panel
comprised of judges who have not previously participated in this case.
No. 03-0613/MC. U.S. v. Jimmie L.
GETER.
CCA
9901433.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The
record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy
for
remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article 66(c),
Uniform Code
of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a panel
comprised of
judges who have not previously participated in this case.
No. 04-0067/MC. U.S. v. Timothy T.
RYAN.
CCA
9900374.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article
66(c), Uniform
Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a panel
comprised
of judges who have not previously participated in this case.
No. 04-0090/MC. U.S. v. Eric W. SELL. CCA
200200458.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article
66(c),
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a
panel
comprised of judges who have not previously participated in this case.
No. 04-0177/NA. U.S. v. John M. LYDY. CCA
200200005.
On further consideration of this case, and in
light of our decision in United States v. Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27
(C.A.A.F.
2004), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the
Navy for remand to that court for a new review pursuant to Article
66(c),
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), before a
panel
comprised of judges who have not previously participated in this case.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT
OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 04-0482/AF.
U.S. v. Eric
P. LUNDEEN.
CCA 35095.
No. 04-0577/AR.
U.S. v.
Charles P. MILLER Jr.
CCA
20001033.
No. 04-0637/AR.
U.S. v. James
H. COLEMAN.
CCA 20020546.
No. 04-0638/AR.
U.S. v.
Cristopher W. HARPER.
CCA
20030709.
No. 04-0659/AR.
U.S. v. Justin
R. ROSENBAUM.
CCA 20030710.
No. 04-0667/AF.
U.S. v. Moises
ORTIZ.
CCA 35709.
No. 04-0682/AF.
U.S. v. Kyle
L. ALEXANDER.
CCA 35704.
No. 04-0690/AR.
U.S. v.
Jermaine MORSTON.
CCA 20040181.
No. 04-0702/AR. U.S. v.
Michael L. BAYLES.
CCA 20030898.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT
OF REVIEW FILED
No. 04-0797/AR.
U.S. v. David
P. CHRISTIAN.
CCA 20011021.
No. 04-0798/MC.
U.S. v. Walter
T. STRZELEWICZ.
CCA 200202313.
No. 04-0799/NA.
U.S. v.
Timothy E. MILLER.
CCA 200400762.
No. 04-0800/AF.
U.S. v. James MORENO, Jr. CCA S30552. [See also INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]
INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS
No. 03-0568/AR.
U.S. v.
Jacqueline BILLINGS.
CCA
9900122. Appellant's motion to
extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including October 19, 2004;
and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time
will be
granted in this case.
No. 04-0615/MC.
U.S. v. Felix
F. VELEZ.
CCA 200301143. Appellee's
motion to correct errata granted.
No. 04-0724/AR.
U.S. v.
Stephen C. ADAMS.
CCA 20010664. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file
supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 29, 2004.
No. 04-0728/AR.
U.S. v. Joel
M. DELA CIRNA.
CCA 20030338.
Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for
grant of
review granted to November 1, 2004.
No. 04-0800/AF.
U.S. v. James MORENO, Jr. CCA S30552. Notice is hereby given that a petition for
grant of review was offered for filing under Rule 20 together with
Appellant’s
supplement to petition for grant of review and motion to file the same
out of
time this date. Appellee shall file an
answer to Appellant’s motion on or before the 6th day of
October,
2004. Further action on the petition
shall be held in abeyance pending the Court’s final action on the
motion. [See also PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
this date.]