UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-040
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0444/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
03-0538/MC.
No.
06-0161/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No.
06-8002/AR. Donald W. GOFF, Jr.,
Petitioner, v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No.
06-8002/AR. Donald W. GOFF, Jr.,
Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0266/MC.
No. 05-0300/NA.
No. 05-5003/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE ACTION BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS ON THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THAT COURT’S RULES IS SUBJECT TO
CERTIFICATION
UNDER ARTICLE 67(a)(2) AND REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 67(c), UNIFORM CODE OF
MILITARY
JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2), 867(c) (2000).
II.
IF SO, WHETHER A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS AN
AVAILABLE REMEDY IN RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE CERTIFIED TO THE COURT UNDER
ARTICLE
67(a)(2), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2)
(2000); AND,
IF AVAILABLE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THIS CASE.
III.
WHETHER THE ACTION BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ON THE MOTION TO
SUSPEND
THAT COURT’S RULES IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND RELIEF UNDER THE ALL WRITS
ACT, 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a).
IV.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S ABATEMENT RULING
OR ANY PROCEDURAL MATTERS RELATING THERETO MAY BE APPEALED BY THE
GOVERNMENT
UNDER ARTICLE 62(a)(1), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. §
862(a)(1)
(2000).
The brief of the
No.
06-0060/AF.
No.
06-0064/NA.
1/
Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-039
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0584/MC.
No.
05-0616/AR.
No.
05-0675/AR.
No.
05-0712/AF.
No.
05-0735/AR.
No.
06-0024/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0159/AR.
No.
06-0160/MC.
____________
1/
It is
directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that
redesignated
Specification 2 of Additional Charge I was amended prior to findings to
conform
with the plea.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-038
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0143/AR.
No.
06-0144/AR.
No.
06-0145/AR.
No.
06-0146/AR.
No.
06-0147/AR.
No.
06-0148/AR.
No.
06-0149/AR.
No.
06-0150/AR.
No.
06-0151/AR.
No.
06-0152/AR.
No.
06-0153/AF.
No.
06-0154/AF.
No.
06-0155/AF.
No.
06-0156/AF.
No.
06-0157/AF.
No.
06-0158/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
02-0048/AF.
No.
05-0263/MC.
DOES
A MERE DUTY TO INTERVENE AND SUBSEQUENT INACTION CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT
GROUNDS
TO CONVICT APPELLANT OF ASSAULT UNDER AN AIDER AND ABETTOR THEORY?
No further briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
It
is further ordered that the issue specified by the Court on
No.
05-0500/NA.
No.
05-0766/AR.
Appellant's second motion to extend time to
file a supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but
only up to and including
No.
06-0008/AF.
No.
06-0050/AR.
No.
06-0052/NA.
No.
06-0074/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-037
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0142/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-036
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
03-0141/AF.
No.
06-0131/AR.
No.
06-0132/AR.
No.
06-0133/AF.
No.
06-0134/AF.
No.
06-0135/AF.
No.
06-0136/AF.
No.
06-0137/AF.
No.
06-0138/AF.
No.
06-0139/AF.
No.
06-0140/AF.
No.
06-0141/AF.
____________
1/
Third
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-035
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0646/MC.
No.
05-0657/AR.
No.
05-0671/AF.
No.
05-0727/AF.
No.
05-0732/AR.
No.
05-0734/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0372/MC.
No.
06-0122/AR.
No.
06-0123/AR.
No.
06-0124/AR.
No.
06-0125/AR.
No.
06-0126/NA.
No.
06-0127/NA.
No.
06-0128/MC.
No.
06-0129/MC.
No.
06-0130/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0030/AR.
No.
06-0035/AR.
No.
06-0036/AR.
No.
06-0051/AR.
____________
1/
Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-034
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0110/AR.
No.
06-0111/AR.
No.
06-0112/AR.
No.
06-0113/AR.
No.
06-0114/AR.
No.
06-0115/AF.
No.
06-0116/AF.
No.
06-0117/AF.
No.
06-0118/AF.
No.
06-0119/NA.
No.
06-0120/MC.
No.
06-0121/MC.
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-033
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0733/AR.
No.
05-0738/AR.
No.
06-0013/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0103/AF.
No.
06-0104/AF.
No.
06-0105/AF.
No.
06-0106/AF.
No.
06-0107/AF.
No.
06-0108/AF.
No.
06-0109/NA.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 05-8042/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-032
CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED
No. 06-5002/CG.
I.
DID THE COAST
GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT’S
WAIVER OF
APPELLATE REVIEW WAS INVALID, ERR BY CONDUCTING A SUA SPONTE REVIEW
UNDER
ARTICLE 66(B), WHERE THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL CERTIFIED THE CASE TO
THE COURT
PURSUANT TO UCMJ ARTICLE 69(D).
II. DID THE
COAST
GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY CONCLUDING THAT RCM 1110(F),
WHICH
EXPRESSLY PERMITS AN ACCUSED TO SIGN A WAIVER OF APPELLATE REVIEW “ANY
TIME
AFTER THE SENTENCE IS ANNOUNCED,” IS CONTRARY TO UCMJ ARTICLE 61.
III. TO THE
EXTENT
UCMJ ARTICLE 61 IS AMBIGUOUS, AND GIVEN THAT CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY
GRANTED THE
PRESIDENT RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD OF MILITARY JUSTICE, MUST
AN
ARTICLE I COURT DEFER TO THE PRESIDENT’S REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
THAT
ARTICLE.
Appellant will file a brief under Rule
22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 19th
day of
December, 2005.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0101/AR.
No.
06-0102/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
02-0513/AR.
No.
05-0127/MC.
No.
05-5002/MC.
No.
06-0034/NA.
No.
06-0067/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-031
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0224/AF.
In that STAFF
SERGEANT
ROBERT S. BREWER, United States Air Force, Air Force Information
Warfare
Center, did, in Forfar, Scotland, on divers occasions between on or
about 1
September 1994 and on or about 30 September 1996, knowingly transport
in
interstate or foreign commerce, for the purpose of distribution, visual
depictions of an obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy nature. in violation of 18 USC, Section 1465.
That
Specifications 2 and 3 of the Additional Charge are amended to read as
follows:
In that STAFF
SERGEANT
ROBERT S. BREWER, United States Air Force, Air Force Information
Warfare
Center, did, in , in violation of 18
USC, Sec 2252A.
In that STAFF
SERGEANT
ROBERT S. BREWER, United States Air Force, Air Force Information
Warfare
Center, did, in San Antonio, Texas, on divers occasions between on or
about 1
December 1997 and on or about 12 January 1998, knowingly possess
videotapes
depicting child pornography in violation of 18 USC, Sec 2252A.
The
decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed
as to all Charges and Specifications, as amended above, as well as to
sentence.
CRAWFORD, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting
in part):
Because I agree
that
Appellant’s pleas were provident to lesser-included offenses under
clause 1 and
2 of Article 134, I concur in affirming Appellant’s conviction. Consistent with my dissent in Martinelli,
however, I disagree that Appellant’s guilty plea to specification 2 of
the
additional Charge was improvident to the clause 3, Article 134 offense
charged. From that portion of the order
I respectfully dissent.
No.
02-0759/AR.
GIERKE, Chief
Judge (concurring in the result):
I would reverse
based on the
military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child
pornography,” see
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting):