UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-021
Wednesday, October 31, 2001

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

No. 01-0178/AR. U.S. v. Richard H. CROWSON. CCA 9900438. On further consideration of the granted issue, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge (concurring in the result): The majority does not grant relief or affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals granting relief in this case based on the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges. This action is consistent with my separate opinion in United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 345 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I vote to affirm this case.

No. 01-0267/NA. U.S. v. Jason C. LENTZ. CCA 99000433. On further consideration of the granted issue, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge (concurring in the result): The majority does not grant relief or affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals granting relief in this case based on the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges. This action is consistent with my separate opinion in United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 345 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I vote to affirm this case.

No. 01-0437/AR. U.S. v. Kevin C. RICE. CCA 9901007. On further consideration of the granted issue, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge (concurring in the result): The majority does not grant relief or affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals granting relief in this case based on the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges. This action is consistent with my separate opinion in United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 345 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I vote to affirm this case.

No. 01-0463/AF. U.S. v. Evette R. WLOCH. CCA S29728. On further consideration of the granted issue, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge (concurring in the result): The majority does not grant relief or affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals granting relief in this case based on the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges. This action is consistent with my separate opinion in United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 345 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I vote to affirm this case.

No. 01-0567/AF. U.S. v. Amanda J. BLOODWORTH. CCA S29825. On further consideration of the granted issue, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge (concurring in the result): The majority does not grant relief or affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals granting relief in this case based on the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges. This action is consistent with my separate opinion in United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 345 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I vote to affirm this case.

No. 01-0583/AR. U.S. v. Dexter R. IRVING. CCA 9901204. On further consideration of the granted issue, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

SULLIVAN, Senior Judge (concurring in the result): The majority does not grant relief or affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals granting relief in this case based on the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges. This action is consistent with my separate opinion in United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 345 (2001) (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I vote to affirm this case.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0434/NA. U.S. v. Kelton L. GOODE. CCA 9800383.

No. 01-0858/AF. U.S. v. Adam L. ADAMCZYK. CCA 34256.

No. 01-0867/AF. U.S. v. Justin J. MAYBERRY. CCA 34525.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0061/MC. U.S. v. Jerad L. DAYISH. CCA 200100811.

No. 02-0062/NA. U.S. v. Roland L. FRENCH. CCA 200000263.

MANDATES ISSUED

No. 00-0271/AR. U.S. v. Andrew A. SZENTMIKLOSI. CCA 9701049.

No. 00-0346/AR. U.S. v. Eric B. PACHECO. CCA 9500002.

No. 00-0617/CG. U.S. v. William S. BENEDICT. CCA 1083.

No. 97-0666/AF. U.S. v. David E. MCCONNELL. CCA 32081.

No. 99-0401/AR. U.S. v. Chrissandra V. MARBURY. CCA 9700371.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-020
Tuesday, October 30, 2001

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 01-0713/AF. U.S. v. Sean M. BIGELOW. CCA 33797. Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY GIVING A
NONSTANDARD ACCOMPLICE INSTRUCTION CONTRARY TO THIS
HONORABLE COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED STATES V.
GILLETTE, 35 MJ 468, 470 (CMA 1992).

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED
BY CONCLUDING, CONTRARY TO UNITED STATES V. GILLETTE,
35 MJ 468, 470 (CMA 1992), THAT MILITARY JUDGES
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE THE STANDARD ACCOMPLICE
INSTRUCTION WHEN THE ISSUE IS RAISED BY THE EVIDENCE.

III. WHETHER THE NEARLY NINE MONTHS BETWEEN THE CONCLUSION
OF TRIAL AND THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S ACTION AMOUNTED
TO UNREASONABLE POST-TRIAL DELAY.

No. 01-0731/MC. U.S. v. Manuel J. CHACON. CCA 01-0151. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING NO PREJUDICE
WHERE THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S ACTION TOOK OVER 11
MONTHS IN A 29-PAGE RECORD OF TRIAL.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0060/MC. U.S. v. Anthony L. JONES. CCA 01-0066.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 02-0002/MC. U.S. v. Fernando SAUCEDO. CCA 99-00362. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to November 23, 2001.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-019
Monday, October 29, 2001

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 01-0615/AF. U.S. v. Josh R. LEAVITT. CCA 33681. Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED
WHEN IT DECLINED TO FOLLOW THIS HONORABLE COURT'S ORDER
TO RECONSIDER ITS DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR
APPELLATE DISCOVERY IN LIGHT OF THIS HONORABLE COURT'S
DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. HUBERTY, 53 MJ 369 (2000).

II. WHETHER SPECIFICATION 7 OF THE CHARGE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE BECAUSE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.

No. 01-0760/AR. U.S. v. Claude B. CARSON, Jr. CCA 9801402. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN
IT HELD SPECIFICATION 7 OF CHARGE III (MALTREATMENT) AS
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW
THAT APPELLANT'S ACTIONS CAUSED THE ALLEGED VICTIM ANY
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL PAIN OR SUFFERING.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0633/AR. U.S. v. Mark A. ARAB. CCA 9801645.

No. 01-0671/AF. U.S. v. Quincy S. MCKENZIE. CCA 33859.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0050/AF. U.S. v. James C. CHASE. CCA 34567.

No. 02-0051/AF. U.S. v. Catherine N. WASHINGTON. CCA S29973.

No. 02-0052/AF. U.S. v. Jamie A. TOMASSETTI. CCA 34603.

No. 02-0053/AF. U.S. v. George STARKS, IV. CCA 34527.

No. 02-0054/AF. U.S. v. Jermall J. SMITH. CCA S29970.

No. 02-0055/AF. U.S. v. Eric V. PONDER. CCA 34370.

No. 02-0056/AF. U.S. v. Kerry J. NAZARIO. CCA 34221.

No. 02-0057/AF. U.S. v. Amber R. KINCAID. CCA 34420.

No. 02-0058/AF. U.S. v. Gordon L. LYONS. CCA S29951.

No. 02-0059/AF. U.S. v. Wayne E. WATSON. CCA 34360.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

Misc. No. 02-8003/AF. United States, respondent, v. Leslie D. RILEY, petitioner. CCA 32183. Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and petition for habeas corpus were filed under Rule 27(a) on October 26, 2001, and placed on the docket this date.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-018
Friday, October 26, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0866/AF. U.S. v. Kerry S. LIND. CCA 34293.

No. 01-0872/AR. U.S. v. William J. SIMMONS, Jr. CCA 20000451.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0049/AF. U.S. v. Lawrence R. CHISOLM. CCA 34498.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-017
Thursday, October 25, 2001

HEARINGS

No. 01-0249/AF. U.S. v. James R. CRAVENS. CCA 33438.

No. 01-0418/AF. U.S. v. Jason W. HALL. CCA 33476.

No. 01-0466/AF. U.S. v. Robert W. PINSON, III. CCA 32963.

No. 01-0492/AF. U.S. v. Gordon L. SMITH. CCA S29720.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0894/MC. U.S. v. Virgil GRIFFIN. CCA 98-00332.
Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to November 23, 2001.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-016
Wednesday, October 24, 2001

RULE CHANGE

Pursuant to the revision of Rule 13(c) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, approved by the Court on October 22, 2001, it is ordered that effective November 1, 2001, the application fee for admission to the Bar of this Court will be $35.

HEARINGS

No. 01-0243/AR. U.S. v. John A. WHITTEN. CCA 9900373.

No. 01-0289/AR. U.S. v. Anson D. BENTON. CCA 9800862.

No. 01-0351/AF. U.S. v. Bernard D. BURT. CCA 33429.

No. 01-0421/AF. U.S. v. Edgar E. CORTEGUERA, Jr. CCA 33067.

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

No. 97-0569/AR. U.S. v. Matthew M. CLARK. CCA 9501018. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 97-0569/AR. U.S. v. Matthew M. CLARK. CCA 9501018. [See APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0645/AR. U.S. v. James R. WOOD. CCA 9900196.

No. 01-0669/AF. U.S. v. Robert W. JOHNSON. CCA 33974.

No. 01-0767/AF. U.S. v. Larry R. RODEBAUGH. CCA 34006.

No. 01-0795/AF. U.S. v. Joshua S. HORTON. CCA 34128.

No. 01-0803/AR. U.S. v. Eric S. JONES. CCA 20000939.

No. 01-0813/AF. U.S. v. Raymond G. ROBERTS. CCA S29737.

No. 01-0817/AF. U.S. v. Justin R. KREMER. CCA S29945.

No. 01-0826/AF. U.S. v. Nathan J. MURDOCK. CCA S29861.

No. 01-0828/AF. U.S. v. Lanesa N. WALLACE. CCA S29888.

No. 01-0830/AR. U.S. v. Dominique T. WASHINGTON. CCA 20000655.

No. 01-0832/AR. U.S. v. Gregorio F. TANGANA, Jr. CCA 20000555.

No. 01-0834/AR. U.S. v. Derek J. WININGER. CCA 9900408.

No. 01-0837/AF. U.S. v. Melina S. CURATOLO. CCA 34244.

No. 01-0838/AF. U.S. v. Donnelle L. DEWS. CCA S29953.

No. 01-0839/AF. U.S. v. Jennifer L. DUNNE. CCA S29896.

No. 01-0840/AF. U.S. v. Charity N. ELLIOTT. CCA 34425.

No. 01-0843/AF. U.S. v. Vincent K. MALONEY. CCA S29964.

No. 01-0845/AF. U.S. v. Robert J. MING. CCA S29958.

No. 01-0849/AF. U.S. v. Glenn R. STAHL, Jr. CCA 34268.

No. 01-0851/AR. U.S. v. Donald J. BEICHNER. CCA 20000650.

No. 01-0853/AR. U.S. v. Elias D. ALLEN, Jr. CCA 20001054.

No. 01-0854/NA. U.S. v. Thomas A. REEVES, Jr. CCA 00-0590.

No. 01-0873/AR. U.S. v. Marquis K. WARREN. CCA 9900982.

No. 01-0881/AR. U.S. v. Quarterrious SYKES. CCA 20000658.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 98-0146/AF. U.S. v. Leslie D. RILEY. CCA 32183.*/

No. 02-0048/AF. U.S. v. James A. SILLS. CCA 34323.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0289/AR. U.S. v. Anson D. BENTON. CCA 9800862.
Appellee's motion to file out of time petition to correct errata and petition to correct errata which this Court construes as a motion to correct errata granted.
________

*/ Second petition filed in this case.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-015
Tuesday, October 23, 2001

HEARINGS

No. 01-0011/AR. U.S. v. Pedro CHAPA, III. CCA 9801043.

No. 01-0222/CG. U.S. v. Daniel F. CZESCHIN. CCA 1125.

No. 01-0226/MC. U.S. v. Lester R. HARRIS. CCA 2000-0354.

No. 01-0304/AR. U.S. v. Trevis D. MOSBY. CCA 9900437.

No. 01-0363/AF. U.S. v. Eric E. GRANT. CCA S29569.

MANDATES ISSUED

No. 00-0301/MC. U.S. v. Glenn E. HURN. CCA 98-0200.

No. 00-0553/NA. U.S. v. Albert R. HARRIS. CCA 98-1951.

No. 01-0285/AF. U.S. v. Janice M. WASHINGTON. CCA S29570.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-014
Monday, October 22, 2001

RULES CHANGES

Upon careful consideration of certain proposed changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which were presented to and reviewed by the Rules Advisory Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and thereafter published in the Federal Register for comment, it is ordered that effective November 1, 2001, Rules 13(c), 20(b) and (c), 21(b), 24, and 41(a) are amended as follows:

REVISION TO RULE 13(c)

ATTORNEYS

RULE 13. QUALIFICATIONS TO PRACTICE

(a) [Same]

(b) [Same]

(c) Each applicant shall file with the Clerk an application for admission on the form prescribed by the Court, together with an application fee in an amount prescribed by Court order and a certificate from the presiding judge, clerk, or other appropriate officer of a court specified in (b) above, . . .

(d) [Same]

REVISION TO RULE 20(b) and (c)

RULE 20. FORM OF PETITION FOR GRANT OF REVIEW

* * * * *

(b) Form to be used by an appellant’s counsel. A petition for grant of review under Rule 18(a)(1) filed by counsel on behalf of an appellant will be substantially in the following form:

* * * * *

_____________________________

(Signature of counsel)

_____________________________
(Typed name of counsel)

_____________________________
(Address of counsel)

_____________________________
(Telephone no. of counsel)

_____________________________
(E-mail address, if any)

_____________________________
(Date and manner of filing -
see Rules 36 and 39))

* * * * *

(c) An appellant or counsel on behalf of an appellant shall file a petition for grant of review in the manner and within the time limits set forth in Rule 19(a). Upon receipt, the Clerk shall stamp the petition indicating the date it was received and, if filed by mail under Rule 36(c), shall retain the envelope showing the postmark thereon.

REVISION TO RULE 21(b)

RULE 21. SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR GRANT OF REVIEW

(a) Review on petition for grant of review requires a showing of good cause. Good cause must be shown by the appellant in the supplement to the petition, which shall state with particularity the error(s) claimed to be materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. See Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859(a).

(b) The supplement to the petition shall be filed in accordance with the applicable time limit set forth in Rule 19(a)(5)(A) or (B), shall include an Appendix required by Rule 24(a), shall conform to the provisions of Rules 24(b), 35A, and 37, and shall contain:

(1) A statement of the errors assigned for review by the Court;
(2) A statement of statutory jurisdiction, including:
                (A) the statutory basis of the Court of Criminal
                Appeals’ jurisdiction; (B) the statutory basis upon which this Court’s jurisdiction is invoked; (3) A statement of the case setting forth a concise chronology, including all relevant dates. The chronology shall specify: (A) the results of the trial; (B) the actions of the intermediate reviewing authorities and the Court of Criminal Appeals; (C) the disposition of a petition for reconsideration or rehearing, if filed; and (D) any other pertinent information regarding the proceedings, [including, if set forth in the record, the date when service upon the accused of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals was effected.];
(4) A statement of facts of the case material to the errors assigned, including specific page references to each relevant portion of the record of trial;
(5) A direct and concise argument showing why there is good cause to grant the petition, demonstrating with particularity why the errors assigned are materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Where applicable, the supplement to the petition shall also indicate whether the court below has:
(A) decided a question of law which has not been, but should be, settled by this Court;

(B) decided a question of law in a way in conflict with applicable decisions of (i) this Court, (ii) the Supreme Court of the United States, (iii) another Court of Criminal Appeals, or (iv) another panel of the same Court of Criminal Appeals;

(C) adopted a rule of law materially different from that generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts;

(D) decided the validity of a provision of the UCMJ or other act of Congress, the Manual for Courts-Martial, a service regulation, a rule of court or a custom of the service the validity of which was directly drawn into question in that court;

(E) decided the case (i) en banc or (ii) by divided vote;

(F) so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by a court-martial or other person acting under the authority of the UCMJ, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s power of supervision; or

(G) taken inadequate corrective action after remand by the Court subsequent to grant of an earlier petition in the same case and that appellant wishes to seek review from the Supreme Court of the United States; and
 

(6) A certificate of filing and service in accordance with Rule 39(e).
(c)(1) Answer/reply in Article 62, UCMJ, appeals. An appellee’s answer to the supplement to the petition for grant of review in an Article 62, UCMJ, 10 USC § 862 (1983), case shall be filed no later than 10 days after the filing of such supplement. A reply may be filed by the appellant no later than 5 days after the filing of the appellee’s answer.
(2) Answer/reply in other appeals. An appellee’s answer to the supplement to the petition for grant of review in all other appeal cases may be filed no later than 30 days after the filing of such supplement, see Rule 21(e); as a discretionary alternative in the event a formal answer is deemed unwarranted, an appellee may file with the Clerk of the Court a short letter, within 10 days after the filing of the appellant’s supplement to the petition under Rule 21, setting forth one of the following alternative positions: (i) that the United States submits a general opposition to the assigned error(s) of law and relies on its brief filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals; or (ii) that the United States does not oppose the granting of the petition (for some specific reason, such as an error involving an unsettled area of the law). A reply may be filed by the appellant no later than 10 days after the filing of the appellee’s answer.
(d) The Court may, in its discretion, examine the record in any case for the purpose of determining whether there appears to be plain error not assigned by the appellant. The Court may then specify and grant review of any such errors as well as any assigned errors which merit review.
(e) Where no specific errors are assigned in the supplement to the petition, the Court will proceed to review the petition without awaiting an answer thereto. See Rule 19(a)(5).
(f) An appellant or counsel for an appellant may move to withdraw his petition at any time. See Rule 30.
[Amended October 1, 1987; amended July 16, 1990, effective August 15, 1990; amended October 12, 1994; amended January 20, 1999, effective February 1, 1999.]
REVISION TO RULE 24

RULE 24. FORM, CONTENT, AND PAGE LIMITATIONS

(a) Form and content. All briefs shall conform to the printing, copying, and style requirements of Rule 37, shall be legible, and shall be substantially as follows:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES

UNITED STATES,                 )
                                                                              )
        (Appellee)             )
        (Appellant)            ) BRIEF ON BEHALF
        (Respondent)           ) OF (APPELLANT,
    v.                         ) APPELLEE, ETC.)
______________________         )
(Full typed name, rank,        ) Crim.App. Dkt. No. ______
& service of accused)          )
(Service no. ___),             ) USCA Dkt. No. ________
        (Appellant)            )
        (Appellee)             )
        (Petitioner)           )

Index of Brief
[See Rule 37(c)(1)]

Table of Cases, Statutes, and Other Authorities

Issue(s) Presented

[Set forth, in a concise statement, each issue granted review by the Court, raised in the certificate for review or mandatory review case, or presented in the petition for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petition, or petition for new trial. Issues presented will be set forth in upper case letters.]

Statement of Statutory Jurisdiction

[Set forth the statutory basis of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ jurisdiction and the statutory basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.]

Statement of the Case

[Set forth a concise chronology, including all relevant dates, to include: (A) the results of the accused’s trial,;(B) actions of the intermediate reviewing authorities by the convening authority and the Court of Criminal Appeals;, and as well as any other pertinent information regarding the proceedings, including, where applicable, the date the petition for review was granted.]
(C) the disposition of a petition for reconsideration or rehearing, if filed; and (D) any other pertinent information regarding the proceedings, including, where applicable, the date the petition for review was granted.]

Statement of Facts

[Set forth a concise statement of the facts of the case material to the issue or issues presented, including specific page references to each relevant portion of the record of trial. Answers may adopt the appellant’s or petitioner’s statement of facts if there is no dispute, may state additional facts, or, if there is a dispute, may restate the facts as they appear from the appellee’s or respondent’s viewpoint. The repetition of uncontroverted matters is not desired.]

Summary of Argument

[Each brief and answer shall contain a summary of argument, suitably paragraphed to correspond to each issue presented. The summary should be a succinct but accurate and clear condensation of the arguments made in the body of the brief.]

Argument

[Discuss briefly the point of law presented, citing and quoting such authorities as are deemed pertinent. The argument must also include for each issue presented a statement of the applicable standard of review. The standard of review may appear in the discussion of each issue or under a separate heading.]

Conclusion

[State the relief sought as to each issue presented, for example, reversal of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision and dismissal of the charges, grant of a new trial, the extraordinary relief sought, etc. No particular form of language is required, so long as the brief concludes with a clear prayer for specific Court action.]

Appendix

[The brief of the appellant or petitioner shall include an appendix containing a copy of the Court of Criminal Appeals decision, unpublished opinions cited in the brief, and relevant extracts of rules and regulations. The appellee or respondent shall similarly file an appendix containing a copy of any additional unpublished opinions and relevant extracts of rules and regulations cited in the answer.]

_____________________________
(Signature of counsel)

_____________________________
(Typed name of counsel)

_____________________________
(Address of counsel)

_____________________________
(Telephone no. of counsel)


CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was [mailed] [delivered] to the Court and [mailed] [delivered] to (enter name of each counsel of record) on ________________.
    (date)
 

__________________________
(Typed name and signature)

___________________________
(Address and telephone no.)


(b) Page limitations. Unless otherwise authorized by order of the Court or by motion of a party granted by the Court (see Rule 30), the page limitations for briefs filed with the Court, not including appendices, shall be as follows:

(1) Briefs of the appellants/petitioners shall not exceed 50 pages;

(2) Answers of the appellees/respondents shall not exceed 50 pages;

(3) Replies of the appellants/petitioners shall not exceed 15 pages.

REVISION TO RULE 41(a)

RULE 41. PHOTOGRAPHING, TELEVISING, RECORDING,
OR BROADCASTING OF HEARINGS

(a) The photographing, televising, recording, or broadcasting of any session of the Court or other activity relating thereto is prohibited within the confines of the courthouse unless authorized by the Court.

(b) Any violation of this rule will be deemed a contempt of this Court and, after due notice and hearing, may be punished accordingly. See 18 USC § 401.

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 01-0590/NA. U.S. v. Timothy J. ELLIS. CCA 98-0729. Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS THE CHARGES OR TO ORDER OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF BASED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S DESTRUCTION OF KEY EVIDENCE.

No. 01-0686/NA. U.S. v. Allen O. DOSS. CCA 99-1380. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY REASSESSING
APPELLANT'S SENTENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF A COMPLETE RECORD IN EXTENUATION AND MITIGATION OR BY FAILING TO APPLY THE PROPER STANDARD FOR SENTENCE REASSESSMENT TO REMEDY A TRIAL ERROR OF CONSTITUTIONAL MAGNITUDE. See UNITED STATES V. BOONE, 49 MJ 187, 195 AND 197-99 (1998).
No. 01-0739/AF. U.S. v. Larry R. HOPKINS. CCA 33937. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY HOLDING THAT AN
ACCUSED'S EXPRESSION OF REMORSE WAS NOT A WHEELER
FACTOR AND REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS THAT APPELLANT'S EXPRESSION OF REMORSE COULD BE CONSIDERED A MATTER IN EXTENUATION AND MITIGATION.
No. 01-0748/MC. U.S. v. Julian M. THIGPIN, III. CCA 20-0100944. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S UNILATERAL EXTENSION OF A SERVICEMEMBER'S PROBATIONARY PERIOD CONSTITUTES LEGAL PREJUDICE FOR SPEEDY REVIEW PURPOSES.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 99-0582/AF. U.S. v. Michael E. KNIGHT. CCA 32754.*/

No. 02-0040/AF. U.S. v. Jon C. RUMFIELD. CCA 34507.

No. 02-0041/AF. U.S. v. Jason P. RASH. CCA S29946.

No. 02-0042/AF. U.S. v. Robert L. PAYTON, III. CCA S29976.

No. 02-0043/AF. U.S. v. David E. MOORE. CCA 33729.

No. 02-0044/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas J. MAKRIS. CCA S29881.

No. 02-0045/AF. U.S. v. Jeffrey A. LINSCOTT, Jr. CCA 34218.

No. 02-0046/AF. U.S. v. Per T. LARSEN. CCA S29930.

No. 02-0047/AF. U.S. v. Matthew M. BURCH. CCA 34368.

________

*/ Second petition filed in this case.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

Misc. No. 01-8039/NA. United States, appellee, v. Roger A. HOUSE, appellant. CCA 2000-1561. On further consideration of the writ-appeal petition filed by appellant, appealing from denial by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals of his petition for extraordinary relief, it appears that appellant has not filed a formal motion and pleadings in support thereof with the military judge specifically addressing the circumstances from which he seeks relief in this Court. See generallyUnited States v. Haney, 45 MJ 447, 448 (1996) ("‘In the very nature of things, it is impossible for a court to enter a valid judgment declaring the rights of parties to litigation until the facts on which those rights depend have been "salted down" in a manner sanctioned by the law.’" Erickson v. Starling, 71 S.E.2d 384, 395-96 (N.C. 1952)). Accordingly, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied without prejudice to appellant raising the issue before the military judge through a formal motion and appropriate pleadings in support of the motion.

Misc. No. 02-8002/NA. United States, respondent, v. Samuel E. TOOTLE, petitioner. CCA 98-1945. Petition for extraordinary relief denied.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0887/AF. U.S. v. Miguel A. RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ. CCA 33548.
Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to November 21, 2001.



 
 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-013
Friday, October 19, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0539/AR. U.S. v. Frederick J. WOODHOUSE. CCA 9801033.

No. 01-0721/AF. U.S. v. Andrew P. HODGES. CCA S29859.

No. 01-0775/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan O. CADDY. CCA S29923.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

No. 01-0796/AF. U.S. v. Matthew C. LYNN. CCA 34204.
Appellant's motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.

No. 01-0801/AF. U.S. v. Michael K. SHECKELS. CCA 34410.
Appellant's motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0033/AF. U.S. v. Fernando T. TELLO. CCA 34516.

No. 02-0034/AF. U.S. v. Matthew A. JOHNSON. CCA 34522.

No. 02-0035/AF. U.S. v. Robert D. GARCIA, Jr. CCA S29952.

No. 02-0036/AF. U.S. v. Robert E. WARREN. CCA 34106.

No. 02-0037/NA. U.S. v. Jacob B. SOELL. CCA 200100514.

No. 02-0038/NA. U.S. v. Carlos R. KEARNEY. CCA 200000285.

No. 02-0039/NA. U.S. v. Wendall S. BEA. CCA 9901237.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

Misc. No. 02-8002/NA. United States, respondent, v. Samuel E. TOOTLE, petitioner. CCA 98-1945. Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 9, 2001, and placed on the docket this date.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 00-0633/AR. U.S. v. Richard A. KINNEY. CCA 9800451. Appellee's motion for additional time to file an answer to Government’s petition for reconsideration which this Court construes as a motion for extension of time to file an answer to the order of the Court granted, but only up to and including November 13, 2001; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0871/AR. U.S. v. Walter HUDSON III. CCA 9801086. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to November 21, 2001.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-012
Thursday, October 18, 2001

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

No. 01-0501/AR. U.S. v. Bering D. REECE. CCA 9900753. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 01-0501/AR. U.S. v. Bering D. REECE. CCA 9900753. [See APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0032/MC. U.S. v. Eric D. BENNETT. CCA 200000440.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0243/AR. U.S. v. John A. WHITTEN. CCA 9900373. Motions for leave to file amicus curiae brief and to permit law student to present oral argument granted; and amicuscuriae is allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.

No. 01-0758/AF. U.S. v. Christopher M. BOX. CCA 33487. Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-011
Wednesday, October 17, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0023/AR. U.S. v. Keyvin S. GLOVER. CCA 20000489.

No. 02-0024/MC. U.S. v. Michael P. JOHNSON. CCA 200001488.

No. 02-0025/NA. U.S. v. Reina R. CORNEJO. CCA 200100516.

No. 02-0026/MC. U.S. v. James M. STETZ. CCA 200101051.

No. 02-0027/MC. U.S. v. Micheal J. HARGENRADER. CCA 200001227.

No. 02-0028/NA. U.S. v. Micheal E. CALLAN. CCA 200000379.

No. 02-0029/MC. U.S. v. Christopher M. COFFEY. CCA 200001894.

No. 02-0030/NA. U.S. v. Kristy L. WADE. CCA 200001874.

No. 02-0031/MC. U.S. v. Benjamin A. SCHELL. CCA 200100628.

MANDATES ISSUED

No. 00-0295/AF. U.S. v. Michael C. BROWN. CCA 32906.

No. 00-0416/AF. U.S. v. Jason A. HART. CCA 32881.

No. 01-0042/AF. U.S. v. Michael W. CATRETT, Jr. CCA 33133.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-010
Tuesday, October 16, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0575/AR. U.S. v. Eric A. SHARP. CCA 9701883.

No. 01-0698/MC. U.S. v. Rafal ZELEK. CCA 9901681.

No. 01-0732/MC. U.S. v. Roger C. FIELD, Jr. CCA 01-0146.

No. 01-0791/AF. U.S. v. Zachery K. COLLIER, Jr. CCA S29957.

No. 01-0794/AF. U.S. v. Jennifer A. GONZALEZ. CCA S29874.

No. 01-0797/AF. U.S. v. Marvin D. MCCOY. CCA 34451.

No. 01-0798/AF. U.S. v. Kristie S. MULLINGS. CCA S29833.

No. 01-0806/AF. U.S. v. Jessica L. ZIEGLER. CCA S29937.

No. 01-0808/AF. U.S. v. Everett J. WALLS. CCA S29766.

No. 01-0809/AF. U.S. v. Tania L. VIZZINI. CCA 34027.

No. 01-0810/AF. U.S. v. Christopher STODGHILL. CCA S29878.

No. 01-0811/AF. U.S. v. Scott Q. SHAW. CCA 33461.

No. 01-0812/AF. U.S. v. Kimberly R. SANTIAGO. CCA S29935.

No. 01-0814/AF. U.S. v. Orlando RAMIREZ. CCA S29858.

No. 01-0816/AF. U.S. v. Daniel A. PIKE. CCA 34470.

No. 01-0821/AF. U.S. v. Barton A. DUVALL. CCA 34487.

No. 01-0822/AF. U.S. v. Devin J. FRITZ. CCA 34077.

No. 01-0823/AF. U.S. v. Scott M. GILMORE. CCA S29931.

No. 01-0824/AF. U.S. v. Christopher S. GROOMS. CCA 34444.

No. 01-0841/AF. U.S. v. Jessica A. LUCAS. CCA 34467.

No. 01-0842/AF. U.S. v. David MACIAS. CCA 34162.

No. 01-0847/AF. U.S. v. James P. PHILLIPS. CCA 34191.

PETITIONS FOR NEW TRIAL - FILINGS

No. 01-0749/AR. U.S. v. Kurtis E. ARMANN. CCA 9900316.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0222/CG. U.S. v. Daniel F. CZESCHIN. CCA 1125. Appellee's motion to substitute counsel granted.

No. 01-0386/AR. U.S. v. Ina J. GUYTON-BHATT. CCA 9800418. Appellee's motion for judicial notice of Army Regulations and motion to correct errata which this Court construes as a motion to attach index granted.

No. 01-0757/AR. U.S. v. Daniel N. SWARTZ. CCA 9800295. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted but only up to and including October 29, 2001; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0762/AR. U.S. v. Jeffrey D. WALKER. CCA 9801091.
Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 22, 2001; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0852/AR. U.S. v. Brett WRIGHT. CCA 9700470. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to November 13, 2001.

No. 01-8039/NA. v. Roger A. HOUSE. CCA 2000-1561. Appellant's motion to supplement the record granted.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-009
Monday, October 15, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0020/AR. U.S. v. Dennis M. STEVENS. CCA 9900666.

No. 02-0021/AR. U.S. v. Derrick D. BOULT. CCA 20000018.

No. 02-0022/AF. U.S. v. John W. BALLENTINE, Jr. CCA 33812.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

Misc. No. 02-8001/NA. United States, respondent, v. Michael P. PAALAN, petitioner. CCA 96-2041. Petition for extraordinary relief denied.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-008
Friday, October 12, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0017/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan P. ROPER. CCA 34481.

No. 02-0018/AF. U.S. v. Nicole D. GLUKOWSKY. CCA 34566.

No. 02-0019/AF. U.S. v. Darrell A. DANNELLEY. CCA 34512.

MANDATES ISSUED

No. 00-0555/AF. U.S. v. Timothy S. WHITNEY. CCA 32807.

No. 00-0560/AF. U.S. v. Gino J. GALLO. CCA 33303.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-007
Thursday, October 11, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0012/AR. U.S. v. Kevin D. WASHINGTON. CCA 9900947.

No. 02-0013/NA. U.S. v. Gregory G. GARCIA. CCA 200001451.

No. 02-0014/MC. U.S. v. Robbie A. DUNSON. CCA 200001379.

No. 02-0015/MC. U.S. v. Dwight E. WHALEY. CCA 9901711.

No. 02-0016/AR. U.S. v. Dennis W. SHARKS. CCA 9900770.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

Misc. No. 02-8001/NA. United States, respondent, v. Michael P. PAALAN, petitioner. CCA 96-2041. Petition for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(a) on September 24, 2001, and placed on the docket this date.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0426/AR. U.S. v. Edward A. HUMPHERYS. CCA 9800141. Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted up to and including October 22, 2001; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0483/MC. U.S. v. Jason R. JORDAN. CCA 99-1778. Appellee's motion to attach denied.

No. 01-0584/AR. U.S. v. Angela M. ROBBINS. CCA 9701524. Appellee's motion to withdraw its motion for extension of time to file an answer to final brief granted; and motion to extend time to file an answer to the supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 24, 2001.

No. 01-0675/NA. U.S. v. Sean M. WILLIAMS. CCA 200000895.
Appellee's motion to file an answer to the supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

No. 01-0751/MC. U.S. v. Michael D. SHEPPERD. CCA 01-0080.
Appellee's motion to file an answer to the supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-006
Tuesday, October 09, 2001

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0007/AR. U.S. v. Michael D. JONES. CCA 20010022.

No. 02-0008/AF. U.S. v. Christopher D. BURCH. CCA 34534.

No. 02-0009/AF. U.S. v. Darian A. BYRD. CCA 34372.

No. 02-0010/AF. U.S. v. Alfreda HARGROVE. CCA 34509.

No. 02-0011/AF. U.S. v. Anthony J. REEVES. CCA 33946.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-005
Friday, October 05, 2001

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 01-0467/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan A. CAMPBELL. CCA 33647. Review granted on the following issue:

I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN PERSISTING TO REFUSE TO GRANT APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY EVEN AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES ORDERED THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TO RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR REFUSAL TO DO SO IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. HUBERTY, 53 MJ 369 (2000). And, that additional briefs shall be filed on the following issue raised in the petition for new trial: II. WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD ORDER AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE WHICH COULD ESTABLISH APPELLANT'S ENTITLEMENT TO A NEW TRIAL.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0542/AR. U.S. v. Joe L. LINEN. CCA 9801162.

No. 01-0779/AF. U.S. v. Michael L. FENN. CCA 34486.

No. 01-0782/AF. U.S. v. Danielle L. GREGORY. CCA S29942.

No. 01-0800/AF. U.S. v. David PINALES. CCA 34462.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0005/AF. U.S. v. John P. MOLNAR. CCA 34417.

No. 02-0006/AR. U.S. v. Michael R. SPRANG. CCA 9900513.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0825/Ar. U.S. v. Travis A. ESCUDERO. CCA 9901113. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 26, 2001.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-004
Thursday, October 04, 2001

HEARINGS

No. 01-0214/AF. U.S. v. Michael W. HAWKINS. CCA 33087.

No. 01-0227/MC. U.S. v. Quinton T. GRAHAM. CCA 99-0630.

No. 01-0241/AF. U.S. v. Hanalei M. TERLEP. CCA 33408.

No. 01-0242/MC. U.S. v. Guillermo A. DOUGLAS. CCA 200000569.

No. 01-0294/MC. U.S. v. Richard B. SMITH. CCA 98-2155.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

No. 01-0632/AR. U.S. v. Rian W. HANSEN. CCA 20000532.

No. 01-0637/AR. U.S. v. Mark C. BRATCHER. CCA 9800550.

No. 01-0665/MC. U.S. v. Daric C. BURR. CCA 200001910.

No. 01-0703/AF. U.S. v. Joshua M. LANTRIP. CCA S29827.

No. 01-0753/AF. U.S. v. Scott E. MCCLINTOCK. CCA 34382.

No. 01-0756/AR. U.S. v. Jason M. HILTON. CCA 20000122.

No. 01-0759/AF. U.S. v. Brian A. SMITH. CCA S29877.

No. 01-0761/AR. U.S. v. Lucas J. HERMIE. CCA 20000345.

No. 01-0766/AF. U.S. v. Daniel M. COMBS. CCA S29820.

No. 01-0774/AR. U.S. v. Mark D. LESTER, Jr. CCA 20010007.

No. 01-0776/AF. U.S. v. Natalie N. DAVIS. CCA S29834.

No. 01-0778/AF. U.S. v. Jason M. EVANS. CCA 34429.

No. 01-0780/AF. U.S. v. Michael S. GINTER. CCA 34286.

No. 01-0781/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan R. GLOVER. CCA 34192.

No. 01-0783/AF. U.S. v. William R. HERRMANN. CCA 34199.

No. 01-0784/AF. U.S. v. Jerimey R. HOWARD. CCA 34280.

No. 01-0785/AF. U.S. v. Brandon Z. KLEESCHULTE. CCA 34358.

No. 01-0787/AF. U.S. v. Alphonso B. ROGERS. CCA 34510.

No. 01-0789/AF. U.S. v. Jason P. WEBSTER. CCA S29933.

No. 01-0790/AR. U.S. v. David W. GREENE. CCA 20010164.

No. 01-0792/AF. U.S. v. Randall D. CHRISTMAN-MCCARTY. CCA 34413.

No. 01-0829/AR. U.S. v. Ryan V. RILEY. CCA 9900685.

No. 01-0831/AR. U.S. v. Jarvis J. BOUDREAUX. CCA 20000840.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0004/AR. U.S. v. Arnold E. WILLIAMS. CCA 9800741.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-003
Wednesday, October 03, 2001

HEARINGS

No. 00-0577/AR. U.S. v. Nura L. SALES. CCA 9602005.

No. 01-0130/AR. U.S. v. Jose L. RODRIGUEZ. CCA 9800800.

No. 01-0237/AF. U.S. v. Todd M. DAVIS. CCA 33265.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0003/AR. U.S. v. Gordon B. THORNLEY. CCA 20010115.

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

No. 01-0827/AR. U.S. v. Chad D. BENNER. CCA 9801777. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 29, 2001.

No. 01-8039/NA. U.S. v. Roger A. HOUSE. CCA 2000-1561. Appellee's motion to file an answer out of time granted.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-002
Tuesday, October 02, 2001

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

No. 01-0646/AF. U.S. v. Lavaughn K. KEY. CCA S29751. Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER IT WAS ERROR FOR THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE TO
NOT SERVE A LEGAL REVIEW OF APPELLANT'S REQUESTS FOR
DEFERMENT OF REDUCTION IN RANK AND FOR DEFERMENT OF
FORFEITURES ON APPELLANT FOR COMMENT.

II. WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO ADVISE APPELLANT OF HIS OPTION TO REQUEST WAIVER OF AUTOMATIC FORFEITURES IN FAVOR OF HIS DEPENDENT OR TO SUBMIT SUCH A REQUEST ON HIS BEHALF CONSTITUTES INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0002/MC. U.S. v. Fernando SAUCEDO. CCA 99-00362.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 02-001
Monday, October 01, 2001

HEARINGS

No. 01-0084/AR. U.S. v. Shawn H. RICHARDS. CCA 9700809.*/

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

No. 02-0001/AR. U.S. v. Delmar G. SIMPSON. CCA 9700775.

_______

*/ Hearing held at The University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, Virginia, as part of the Court’s "Project Outreach" Program.


Home Page |  Opinions & Digest  |  Daily Journal  |  Scheduled Hearings  |  Search Site