No. 01-0893/MC. U.S. v. Rene MOLINA. CCA 00-0729.

No. 01-0894/MC. U.S. v. Virgil GRIFFIN. CCA 98-00332.

No. 01-0895/AF. U.S. v. Luis A. RIVERA Jr. CCA 34499.

No. 01-0896/AF. U.S. v. Wilson E. HOLLEY. CCA 34177.

No. 01-0897/AF. U.S. v. Kim M. FORTUNE. CCA 34529.

No. 01-0898/AF. U.S. v. Alex J. CAMERON. CCA S29871.
 
 

No. 00-0633/AR. U.S. v. Richard A. KINNEY. CCA 9800451. The granted issue asks "[w]hether the military judge erred by ruling that the Government did not have to perform a national criminal records check on witnesses that testified for the Government, as requested by appellant, even though the Government had exclusive access to the requested information." On further review of the granted issue, the Court concludes that further briefing would be appropriate for the reasons set forth herein.

One of the hallmarks of the military justice system is that it provides an accused with a broader right of discovery than required by the Constitution, see, e.g., Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or otherwise available to federal defendants in civilian trials under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12 and 16. SeeUnited States v. Eshalomi, 23 MJ 12, 24 (CMA 1986); United States v. Green, 37 MJ 88, 90 (CMA 1993); United States v. Dancy, 38 MJ 1, 5 (CMA 1993); United States v. Simmons, 38 MJ 376, 380-381 (CMA 1993); Analysis of RCM 701, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2000 ed.) at A21-32.

The primary foundation for the broad right of discovery in the military is Article 46, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 846, which includes the following standard:

The Government must exercise due diligence in reviewing not only the evidence in the possession of the trial counsel, but also that in the possession, control, or custody of other government authorities, as described below, to determine the existence of discoverable information. United States v. Williams, 50 MJ 436, 441 (1999); Simmons, supra at 381.

Williams noted that the scope of the requirement to reach beyond evidence in the immediate custody of the prosecutor is defined by the relationship of the prosecution to the other governmental entity and by the nature of the defense discovery request. In this respect, the due-diligence requirement extends to three types of files: (1) files of law enforcement authorities that have participated in the investigation of the subject matter of the charged offenses; (2) investigative files in a related case maintained by an entity closely aligned with the prosecution; and (3) other files, as designated in a defense discovery request, that involve a specified type of information within a specified entity. Williams, 50 MJ at 441. Williams concluded that "neither Article 46 nor the Brady line of cases requires the prosecution to review records that are not directly related to the investigation of the matter that is the subject of the prosecution, absent a specific defense request identifying the entity, the type of records, and type of information," leaving for another day the "issue of when the prosecution properly may ask for a more particularized showing of relevance." Id. at 443 & n.7.

Where the Government disputes the relevance or necessity of disclosure, or otherwise asserts an applicable privilege, the prosecution may submit the material "to be inspected only by the military judge." RCM 701(g)(2). See RCM 701(f); Mil. R. Evid. 505, 506, Manual, supra. After reviewing the material, the military judge may order that the discovery request be "denied, restricted, or deferred" or may enter such protective order "as is appropriate." RCM 701(g)(2).

If the Government fails to provide the defense with evidence that is required to be disclosed, the failure will constitute a constitutional due process violation only where the evidence is "material either to guilt or to punishment." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. "[E]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability"

—— "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome" —— that disclosure of the evidence could have engendered a different result. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)(opinion of Blackmun, J.).¹ The prosecution faces a heavier burden in the military justice system to sustain a conviction when evidence has been withheld:

Appellant’s pretrial request for discovery included a request for "[a]ny derogatory information, including criminal history or prior disciplinary record, for any witnesses the Government intends to call on the merits or on sentencing." The defense specifically requested "a criminal records check and a National Crime Records Check" on nine potential prosecution witnesses. Subsequently, appellant reduced his request for an NCIC [National Crime Information Center] check so that it would cover only two potential prosecution witnesses, the victim, and a Specialist (SPC) P.

Trial counsel agreed to check the personnel files of the potential witnesses and to conduct a criminal records check (CRC) of military criminal records. He declined, however, to conduct a records check through the NCIC. When appellant initially raised this matter at trial, the military judge ordered the Government to conduct the requested NCIC checks.

At the next Article 39(a) session, trial counsel argued that the Government did not have a responsibility to perform NCIC checks on potential prosecution witnesses and that the steps taken by the Government in this case were sufficient. These steps included: questioning the specified witnesses about their pre-service criminal backgrounds; making the Army personnel files for these witnesses available to the defense; and performing a military Criminal Records Check on these witnesses. Trial counsel also contended that the NCIC checks requested by the defense could not be performed absent an order from the court. In support of this argument, trial counsel offered a memorandum from the Army Criminal Investigation Command, which stated that a court order would be required for such checks.

Defense counsel contended that the NCIC checks were needed, noting that the victim’s credibility would be a critical factor in this contested rape case. He also stated that there were rumors that SPC P, another prosecution witness, had been involved in a prior sexual assault. Defense counsel argued that the military personnel files and military criminal records check would not suffice because they would not necessarily cover pre-service records of criminal activity. He further argued that the requirement for parity between the information available to the prosecution and that available to the defense —— a requirement embodied in Article 46 and RCM 701 —— necessitated performance of the requested NCIC checks. He added that the Government had ready access to such information for its own use in prosecuting a case.

The military judge denied the defense motion for NCIC checks on the victim and SPC P, stating that the Government had acted with due diligence in providing access to the witnesses’ military files and chain of command, and that the defense had shown no reasonable likelihood that the NCIC check would reveal any material information.

Records of prior criminal activity may be used to challenge the testimony of a witness, subject to the applicable rules of evidence. See, e.g., Mil. R. Evid. 404(b) and 609. Criminal justice records provide a vital source of such information.

In the present case, appellant made a detailed discovery request pursuant to Article 46 for a specified type of information

-- a check of the records compiled by the National Crime Information Center for information on two individuals identified by the prosecution as potential Government witnesses. Appellant further stated that the information was available from the U.S. Army Records Center. In response, the Government asserted that the requested information was not available absent a court order. When the Government failed to produce this material, appellant raised the issue of parity, arguing that his inability to obtain this information violated the principle of equal access to evidence. The military judge rejected appellant’s argument, relying at least in part on the Government’s assertion that the information could not be disclosed without a court order.

The manner in which this issue was addressed at trial raises a number of important questions: (1) What is the nature of the Army’s authority over access to and dissemination of NCIC records? (2) May the U.S. Army Crime Records Center access such records without the prior consent or approval of the FBI or any other government entity? (3) Do applicable Department of Justice regulations require the Army to restrict the dissemination of NCIC information on witnesses at courts-martial to the prosecution or the defense? (4) Do such regulations require the Army to limit its control over the dissemination of such information by requiring approval from the Department of Justice prior to release of NCIC information about court-martial witnesses to the prosecution or defense? (5) Do applicable Army regulations limit the Army’s control over dissemination of NCIC information by requiring Army officials to obtain the permission of the Department of Justice prior to the release of NCIC information on witnesses at courts-martial to the prosecution or the defense? (6) Do applicable Army regulations restrict trial counsel’s access to NCIC information? (7) As a precondition to providing trial counsel with access to NCIC reports on witnesses at courts-martial, does the Army require trial counsel to obtain a court order from a military judge? If not, what is the basis for requiring defense counsel to obtain a court order from a military judge prior to obtaining such access? If so: (a) What showing, if any, must the trial counsel make in order to obtain such access? (b) When did the Army initiate the requirement for trial counsel to obtain a court order in seeking such access? (c) What is the legal basis for this practice? (d) Are federal civilian prosecutors required to obtain a court order prior to gaining such access? See Art. 36, UCMJ, 10 USC § 836. (8) Are there legal considerations, consistent with Article 46, that would require the prosecution and the defense to make a specific predicate showing of relevance prior to obtaining access to NCIC records? If so, what showing would suffice? (9) In the present case, did the prosecution review the NCIC information requested by defense? If not, did any entity within the Army preclude the prosecution’s access to such records?

During consideration of these questions, the Court has encountered a variety of pertinent authorities that may warrant further discussion by the parties. For example (1) what is the FBI’s policy on NCIC access by prosecuting counsel, defense counsel, investigating agencies, news media, and other private entities with or without a court order? See, e.g., http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm. (2) To what extent is the present issue informed by regulations governing the Army’s use of and access to the NCIC system. See, e.g., Army Regulation 190-27. (3) What are the pertinent practices within the Army? See, e.g., "Preparing the Government’s Case," Outline of Instruction, 14^th Criminal Law Advocacy Course, United States Army Judge Advocate General’s School (Sept. 2000) (recommending that in searching for material to impeach the defense case, trial counsel should perform background checks on both defense and government witnesses, including checks for NCIC and other criminal history information). (4) What lessons may be drawn from the treatment of NCIC records in federal civilian cases? See, e.g., Cline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176, 179 (6^th Cir. 1996) (no constitutional privacy right to one’s criminal record in the NCIC because "arrest and conviction information are matters of public record)"; United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967 (3d Cir. 1991) (prosecution reliance on an NCIC check in response to a defense discovery request for criminal record history on a witness is insufficient where the Government reasonably should have known that there were other pertinent sources of information); United States v. Luis-Gonzalez, 719 F.2d 1539, 1548 (11^th Cir. 1983) ("disclosure of the witness’ FBI ‘rap sheet’ fully complied with Brady and the requirements of due process"); Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 96 F.3d 1076 (8^th Cir. 1996) (discovery request in civil case for documentation of police defendants’ access to plaintiff’s NCIC records is reasonably interpreted as a proper request for documents relating to such NCIC searches). United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 480-81 (5^th Cir. 1980) (a prosecutor’s decision, based on a perceived lack of time, not to run an NCIC check on a government witness violated discovery requirements).

In light of these additional questions, the Court concludes that it would be useful to have further briefs addressing the matters set forth in Parts IV and V, and such other matters as the parties deem appropriate.²

Accordingly, it is ordered that the Government shall within 30 days from the date of this order file with the Court and with counsel a brief addressing the matters raised in Parts IV and V herein.

That appellant shall then have 30 days to file a brief addressing the Government’s response to this order; and that the Government shall have 30 days to file an answer to Appellant's brief.

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):

Supplementation of the record as the majority seeks to accomplish by its order (1) ignores the procedural posture of this case, (2) violates normal appellate practice, and (3) undermines the long-standing judicial practice of making a trial record where there can be a testing of the adversarial process by calling witnesses for both sides who are subject to the greatest engine of our adversarial trial practice -- cross- examination. An appellate court should refrain from developing or supplementing a factual record because it does not have the tools that are available at the trial level. These tools include, but are not limited to, motions, compulsory process, and cross-examination. In answering the majority’s questions, I would urge the parties to point out those factual issues that should have been tested at the trial level. Furthermore, the questions asked by the majority are not necessary to decide this case. For these reasons I must dissent.

By suggesting that Article 46 is broader than both the Due Process Clause and a defendant’s right of compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment, and by lumping together the provisions of RCM 701, the majority seeks to overcome the normal procedural rules that require the defense to make at least some showing of either unequal access to evidence or a defense need for the evidence. In addition to Article 46 and the provisions of RCM 701 set forth by the majority, the procedural rules governing burdens on the moving party are also important, whether reviewing questions of discovery and command influence, United States v. Newbold, 45 MJ 109, 111 (1996); United States v. Stombaugh, 40 MJ 208 (CMA 1994); or vindictive prosecution, United States v. Argo, 46 MJ 454, 463 (1997). The initial burden of producing sufficient evidence on the factual issues necessary to decide a motion rests with the moving party. RCM 905(c)(2)(A). Merely uttering the word "parity" or speculating as to what adverse information might be contained in an NCIC records check, as the defense has done here, is not sufficient to meet that burden. Furthermore, if the Congress or the President wanted to add "rap sheets" to the disclosure rules, they are quite capable of indicating on the face of the rule what should be disclosed. I fear the majority may seek to legislate by adding a disclosure requirement that has not been placed in the Manual to date. Allowing counsel and defendants access to the criminal records of a witness without a predicate showing could lead to some of the same witness intimidation concerns that Congress had in rejecting the proposal to disclose a witness list and rap sheets.

In its effort to amend the Manual by judicial action, the majority also appears to litigate this case at the appellate level based on affidavits, rather than on the facts presented at trial. The majority asks a series of questions, ___ MJ at (9-10), some of which were also asked at oral argument. I submit that the answers to these questions are neither contained in the record of trial nor necessary to decide the ultimate question in this case: Did the military judge abuse his discretion by denying the defense motion to compel the Government to perform an NCIC check on the requested witnesses? Because of all the above concerns, I respectfully dissent.

Contrary to his pleas, appellant was convicted by officer and enlisted members of raping and committing adultery with PFC G in violation of Articles 120 and 134, UCMJ, 10 USC §§ 920 and 934, respectively.

Prior to trial, as part of its February 8, 1998 discovery request, defense counsel specifically asked that a Criminal Records Check (CRC) and an NCIC records check be performed on a number of individuals, to include PFC G and SPC P, a potential suspect. App. Ex. III. The only evidence offered to support the defense request was that the victim’s credibility would be critical and there were rumors that SPC P, another prosecution witness, was involved in a prior sexual assault. The defense argued that a military personnel records check would be insufficient because it would not cover the pre-service records of these witnesses.

The parties agreed that the results of the CRCs (an investigation done by the Criminal Investigation Command to determine whether a servicemember has any military offenses or has been titled by any military authority) were provided to the defense. Defense counsel continued to ask for an NCIC check on two government witnesses, the victim and SPC P. Under questioning from the military judge, defense counsel admitted that he had checked with SPC P’s friends and they had no information or even rumors that SPC P may have been involved in any type of sexual assault. In the case of PFC G, defense counsel’s reason for requesting a NCIC check was:

DC: Your Honor, because of the importance of her [PFC G’s]

MJ: Sure.

DC: Your Honor, when an accused comes into the CID office to be questioned, normally, I think it would be judicial notice that the CID -- one of their questions, almost always, is, "Have you ever done anything like this in the past?" However, routinely,
CID does a background check on these individuals no matter what they answered to that question, even if they answer, "No." What we’re asking for is parity in this case. The same type of check being given and
the same type of right being given to us.

MJ: . . . With regards to the motion to compel the government to conduct NCIC checks through the FBI for PFC [P] and [victim], which is the motion that is before me, I find that the government has acted with due diligence. Nothing is articulated by defense that shows it is reasonably likely that any information is located in nonmilitary or non-DOD files, which is material to the preparation of the defense or intended for use. Although the trial counsel has evidence in prosecution of the case-in-chief, the government has searched relevant DoD files in this case and turned that information over to defense. Defense has had access to military files and access to all witnesses in this case and access to the witnesses’ chain of command. Based on Simmons at 38 MJ 376, and Williams, at 47 MJ 621, the motion to compel the government to conduct NCIC checks through the FBI is denied.

RCM 701, and in particular RCM 701(a)(6), are modeled after the ABA Standards for Discovery and Procedural Rules, § 11-2.1(c) (1978) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 is similar to earlier versions of the ABA discovery rules. All military discovery rules are undergirded by Article 46; Article 36, UCMJ, 10 USC § 836; and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). All of the foregoing are designed to give defendants equal access to material in order to contribute to the efficiency and fairness of the truth-finding process. Drafters’ Analysis, Manual, supra at A21-32. Cf. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 174 (1986)("a system of justice [must be] dedicated to a search for the truth"). United States v. Johnston, 41 MJ 13 (CMA 1994).

Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 was written to prevent "rap sheets" on witnesses from routinely being given to defense counsel. Originally, proposed amendments to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 would have provided defendants with a witness list and the right to discover all criminal records of government witnesses. H. Rep. No. 94-247, 94 Cong., 1^st Sess. 15 (1975). The disclosure of the witness list and "rap" sheets was one of many proposals that was hotly debated in the halls of Congress, see, e.g., Hearings on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Amendments before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 96 Cong., 1^st Sess. (June 20, 1975), and in the law journals. See, e.g., Hewitt

& Bell, Beyond Rule 16: The Inherent Power of the Federal Court to Order Pretrial Discovery in Criminal Cases, 7 U.San Fran.L.Rev. 233 (1973); Note, Discovery of Witness Identity Under Preliminary Proposed Federal Criminal Rule 16, 12 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 603 (1971).* Testimony before the Committees reflected the concern over the misuse of both the list of witnesses and information as to their background. Such information could lead to witness harassment or intimidation. Based on these debates, the Senate rejected both provisions. H. Conf. Rep. No. 94-414, 94^th Cong., 1^st Sess. 12 (1975). While the witness list proposal was specifically adopted in RCM 701(a)(3), there was no provision for routine disclosure of rap sheets on witnesses. Accordingly, we should avoid any construction of RCM 701 that allows potential open access to NCIC records, which are accessible from a computer at the installation police office, but maintained by the FBI.

In several important respects the defense has failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a sufficient factual basis to support its motion to compel the Government to conduct an NCIC check on two requested witnesses. First, other than a memorandum from a non-commissioned officer from the CID Command, the record in this case is devoid of any authoritative evidence that a court order is a precondition for the defense to have access to NCIC reports on witnesses at courts-martial. Second, defense counsel had an opportunity to make that record at the appropriate time and did not. Accordingly, defense counsel failed to establish a showing of unequal access to evidence.

Furthermore, defense counsel had a pretrial obligation to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the victim’s reputation within her home, community, school, and so forth. Had this been done, we would not now be speculating on appeal and answering very general questions when no record was made at the trial level.

Finally, the majority’s attempt to manufacture a Brady violation from the evidence of record is misplaced. The majority of the Brady cases arose from the defense’s learning, post-trial, of the prosecution’s failure to reveal impeachment evidence. See, e.g., Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999)

(failure to reveal impeachment evidence); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)(Government failed to disclose that two of its principal witnesses had signed agreements to work undercover);

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)(failure to disclose evidence that the victim had been convicted of 2d degree murder). This case is unlike most of the Brady cases.

The implications of the majority order are quite broad. The majority implies that what is in the "possession, custody or control" of the military includes FBI and NCIC records. Such is not the case.

One need only consider the impact of prose representations or how NCIC checks are used to further legitimate law enforcement operations to recognize the inherent danger of open access to rap sheets. When an individual is stopped on a post for a routine traffic stop, Army Regulation 190-27, Army Participation in National Crime Information Center (NCIC)(30 June 1993), permits the base security police to run a NCIC check on the vehicle license plate and driver registration to ensure that there are no outstanding warrants or potential threats to the police officers.

For the reasons set forth above, I would hold that the judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to compel the disclosure of the rap sheets of the two witnesses in this case.

Thus, I respectfully dissent.

No. 01-0064/AF. U.S. v. Bobby D. BAKER, II. CCA 34069. On further consideration in light of the previously granted issues and oral argument, the Court hereby further specifies the following issue:

No. 01-0084/AR. U.S. v. Shawn H. RICHARDS. CCA 9700809.
Motion of amicus curiae for student to present oral argument granted.

No. 01-0467/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan A. CAMPBELL. CCA 33647. Appellant's motion to submit documents denied.
 
 

I. CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2000

Master Docket .............................. 70

Petition Docket ............................ 152

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 3

TOTAL ...................................... 225

ii. CUMULATIVE FILINGS

Master Docket .............................. 131

Petition Docket ............................ 926

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 39

TOTAL ......................................1096

III. CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

Master Docket .............................. 141

Petition Docket ............................ 888

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 39

TOTAL ......................................1068
 
 

iV. CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2001

Master Docket .............................. 60*/

Petition Docket ............................ 190

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 3

TOTAL ...................................... 253
 
 

V. CASES ON MASTER DOCKET CARRIED OVER TO OCTOBER 2002

TERM OF COURT
 
 

99-0232/AR - MARTIN

00-0113/MC - TYNDALE

00-0431/AR - BARNER

00-0499/AR - QUINTANILLA

00-0559/AF - GILLEY

00-0577/AR - SALES

00-0632/AF - BUTCHER

01-0011/AR - CHAPA

01-0047/AR - SIMPSON

01-0084/AR - RICHARDS

01-0130/AR - RODRIGUEZ

01-0134/AR - WIESEN

01-0178/AR - CROWSON

01-0214/AF - HAWKINS

01-0222/CG - CZESCHIN

01-0226/MC - HARRIS

01-0227/MC - GRAHAM

01-0237/AF - DAVIS

01-0241/AF - TERLEP

01-0242/MC – DOUGLAS

01-0243/AR - WHITTEN

01-0249/AF - CRAVENS

01-0267/NA - LENTZ

01-0289/AR - BENTON

01-0294/MC - SMITH

01-0304/AR - MOSBY

01-0351/AF - BURT

01-0363/AF - GRANT

01-0418/AF - HALL

01-0421/AF – CORTEGUERA, Jr.

01-0437/AR - RICE

01-0463/AF – WLOCH

01-0466/AF – PINSON, III

01-0488/AF – McDONALD

01-0483/MC - JORDAN

01-0492/AF - SMITH

01-0503/AF - GILBRIDE

01-0520/CG - TARDIF

01-0567/AF - BLOODWORTH

01-0583/AR - IRVING
 
 

98-1089/AR - GRIGORUK

00-0286/AR - JEFFERS

00-0319/NA - LAMBERT

00-0594/AR - MOMENT

00-0633/AR - KINNEY

01-0064/AF - BAKER

01-0295/AR - STONEMAN

01-0337/NA - HOLLIS

01-0386/AR – GUYTON-BHATT

01-0387/NA - KHAMSOUK

01-0408/AR - BRACEY

01-0426/AR - HUMPHERYS

01-0452/AF - THOMPSON

01-0519/AR - PALAGAR

01-0530/AR - ANGONE

01-0602/AF – DOWNING

01-0607/AF - DANIELS

01-0620/AF - PHANPHIL

01-0647/AF - BULLMAN

01-0656/AF - SPAUSTAT

FOOTNOTES:

¹ See alsoStrickler v. Green, 527 U.S. 263, 297-300 S.Ct. 1936, 1956 (1999) (Souter, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part) (discussing the Supreme Court’s interchangeable use of "reasonable probability," "reasonable possibility," and "significant possibility.")

² In so doing, we note that there is an alternative to addressing the questions raised in Parts IV and V., When a discrete, manageable, and readily available set of discovery materials is at issue, the most efficient means of resolving a discovery issue may be for the Court to first determine whether the information at issue was material, see, e.g., United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985), regardless of whether the failure to disclose the information violated applicable discovery principles.

Accordingly, in lieu of addressing the questions raised in Parts IV and V, appellee may submit the requested NCIC records at issue to this Court under seal. If appellee makes such a submission, the Court will consider whether an appropriate protective order should be issued. See United States v. Abrams, 50 MJ 361, 364 (1999).

* Additionally, many advocated disclosure of documents within the possession and control of the Government, including statements by the accused, the past criminal record of the accused, documents and tangible evidence, and reports of examinations and tests. They also sought grand

jury testimony, evidence seized from the accused, notice of lineup identifications, prosecution granted immunities, and a provision for testimony in pretrial agreements. All of these disclosures, or their functional equivalent, are presently available in the military, except for the disclosure of rap sheets on witnesses.
 

*/ Comparative Master Docket figures for the past 10 years are: 70 (FY00); 77 (FY99); 105 (FY98); 289 (FY97); 73 (FY96); 105 (FY95); 119 (FY94); 248 (FY93); 119 (FY92); 69 (FY91).

No. 01-0891/CG. U.S. v. David W. CAMPBELL. CCA 1096.

No. 01-0892/AF. U.S. v. Shannon L. POWELL. CCA 33670.

Misc. No. 01-8036/AR. United States, appellee, v. Morris T. COBIA, appellant. CCA 20010561. Writ-appeal petition denied.*/

No. 01-0241/AF. U.S. v. Hanalei M. TERLEP. CCA 33408. Appellee's motion to strike denied.

_____

*/ SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting): I would give the Government 30 days to show cause why petitioner should not receive credit for his civilian confinement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2000) and United States v. Harris, 876 F.2d 1502, 1506-07 (11^th Cir. 1989). Once the Government responded, I would give petitioner 10 days to answer and then set this matter for oral argument.

No. 00-0315/AR. U.S. v. Troy W. CARBAUGH. CCA 9701612.

No. 01-0535/AF. U.S. v. Darren P. McCORMICK. CCA 33676.

No. 01-0627/AF. U.S. v. Roscoe P. WINSTON, Jr. CCA S29701.

No. 01-0047/AR. U.S. v. Charles W. SIMPSON. CCA 9700925. Appellant's petition for extension of time granted; the Court’s hearing notice issued on July 31, 2001, is hereby vacated; and this case shall be rescheduled for oral argument on a subsequent date.

No. 01-0227/MC. U.S. v. Quinton T. GRAHAM. CCA 99-0630. Appellant's motion to correct errata granted.

No. 01-0304/AR. U.S. v. Trevis D. MOSBY. CCA 9900437. Appellee’s motions to admit appellate exhibits A, B, and C denied.

No. 01-0337/NA. U.S. v. Mark K. HOLLIS. CCA 9900297. Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including October 12, 2001; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0408/AR. U.S. v. David A. BRACEY. CCA 9900298. Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted to September 28, 2001.

No. 01-0483/MC. U.S. v. Jason R. JORDAN. CCA 99-1778. Appellee's motion to extend time to file answer to final brief granted to September 28, 2001.

No. 01-0520/CG. U.S. v. Sean M. TARDIF. CCA 1141. Appellee's motion to substitute counsel granted.

No. 01-0749/AR. U.S. v. Kurtis E. ARMANN. CCA 9900316. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including October 11, 2001; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0802/AR. U.S. v. Ramon S. GUTIERREZ, Jr. CCA 9900509. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 15, 2001.

No. 01-0337/NA. U.S. v. Mark K. HOLLIS. CCA 9900297. Appellant's motion to attach documents and motion for leave to file supplemental issues denied.

No. 01-0584/AR. U.S. v. Angela M. ROBBINS. CCA 9701524. Appellant's motion for leave to file Grostefon matters under United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982), granted.

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

No. 01-0772/AR. U.S. v. Lavon FOXX. CCA 9900660. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 17, 2001.

No. 01-0804/AR. U.S. v. Russell B. DILLARD. CCA 9900545.

Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 29, 2001.

No. 01-0805/AR. U.S. v. Andre C. JONES. CCA 9901251. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 29, 2001.

No. 01-0674/AR. U.S. v. George W. BLACKLEY, Jr. CCA 9700647.

No. 01-0690/AR. U.S. v. Ryan D. KRUEGER. CCA 20000050.

No. 01-0704/AF. U.S. v. Montoria L. HARRIS. CCA 34226.

No. 01-0706/AF. U.S. v. Ernest D. BROWN. CCA S29775.

No. 01-0708/AR. U.S. v. Jason N. BECK. CCA 20000986.

No. 01-0714/AF. U.S. v. Ruben L. DAVIS. CCA S29922.

No. 01-0715/AF. U.S. v. Travis L. DAVIS. CCA S29842.

No. 01-0716/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan D. EISEMAN. CCA S29918.

No. 01-0717/AF. U.S. v. Dadrian L. ELLIS. CCA S29815.

No. 01-0719/AF. U.S. v. H.L.Blake HAGER. CCA S29939.

No. 01-0722/AF. U.S. v. Landry M. LEBLANC. CCA 34433.

No. 01-0725/AF. U.S. v. Seth B. NEWELL. CCA 34411.

No. 01-0729/AR. U.S. v. Jose A. RODRIGUEZ-FONTANEZ. CCA 20000556.

No. 01-0730/NA. U.S. v. Martin W. CLEBOWICZ, Jr. CCA 200001707.

No. 01-0733/AF. U.S. v. Matthew S. CLEGG. CCA 34310.

No. 01-0734/AF. U.S. v. Michael W. EDDINGS. CCA 34384.

No. 01-0735/AF. U.S. v. Chad P. ENGLE. CCA S29863.

No. 01-0737/AF. U.S. v. David M. GARRETT. CCA 34460.

No. 01-0740/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas A. MARTIN. CCA 34373.

No. 01-0741/AF. U.S. v. William M. MCKINLEY, III. CCA 34231.

No. 01-0743/AF. U.S. v. Samantha Y. WATSON. CCA S29914.

No. 01-0745/AF. U.S. v. Gretchen J. SCHNEIDER. CCA S29920.

No. 01-0752/AF. U.S. v. William A. BORDERS. CCA S29843.

No. 01-0754/AF. U.S. v. Joseph S. HOPEWELL. CCA 34432.

No. 01-0877/AR. U.S. v. Dujuan M. SMITH. CCA 20010218.

No. 01-0878/AR. U.S. v. Gregory L. BAKER. CCA 20000365.

No. 01-0879/AR. U.S. v. John A. RODRIGUEZ. CCA 20010073.

No. 01-0880/AR. U.S. v. Tutuila AVA. CCA 20010055.

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

No. 01-0882/AR. U.S. v. David L. WILLIAMS. CCA 9900143.

No. 01-0883/AF. U.S. v. Ray R. FARVAN. CCA 34359.

No. 01-0884/AF. U.S. v. Charles W. CAOUETTE. CCA 34284.

No. 01-0885/AF. U.S. v. David J. PADGETT. CCA 34474.

No. 01-0886/AF. U.S. v. Derick L. PATE. CCA S29954.

No. 01-0887/AF. U.S. v. Miguel A. RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ. CCA 33548.

No. 01-0888/AF. U.S. v. Daniel D. SPRAGUE. CCA 34544.

No. 01-0889/AF. U.S. v. Virgil K. WEST. CCA 33840.

No. 01-0890/AF. U.S. v. Lofton E. WILLIAMS Jr. CCA 34479.

No. 01-0677/AF. U.S. v. Patrick A. JENTZSCH. CCA 33720.

Appellant's motion to submit documents denied.

No. 01-0875/AR. U.S. v. James E. BROWN, III. CCA 9900984.

No. 01-0876/AR. U.S. v. Matthew GALLARDO. CCA 20000575.

No. 00-0594/AR. U.S. v. Joel Z. MOMENT. CCA 9900604. On further consideration of the above-styled case in light of the opinion of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on remand by this Court, it is ordered that appellant shall file a brief on the remanded issue on or before October 23, 2001; and that appellee may file an answer within thirty days thereafter.

No. 01-0084/AR. U.S. v. Shawn H. RICHARDS. CCA 9700809. Motion for leave to file amicus brief out of time granted.

No. 01-0562/AF. U.S. v. Alan R. MOORE. CCA 33567.

No. 01-0572/AF. U.S. v. Glen A. MAYTON. CCA S29743.*/

No. 01-0871/AR. U.S. v. Walter HUDSON III. CCA 9801086.

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

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

No. 01-0874/NA. U.S. v. Thomas W. GARCIA. CCA 9900934.
_____

*/ SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting): I would grant the following issue:

WHETHER APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA TO VIOLATING A
GENERAL REGULATION BY MISUSING HIS GOVERNMENT
NATIONS BANK VISA CARD IS PROVIDENT WHEN THE
PUNITIVE ASPECTS OF THE REGULATION APPLY
ONLY TO MISUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT AMERICAN
EXPRESS CARD.

No. 00-0628/AR. U.S. v. John H. WHITE. CCA 9900800.

No. 01-0521/MC. U.S. v. Kelvin HARGROVE. CCA 99-0667.

No. 01-0525/AF. U.S. v. Curtis KEKOA, III. CCA 33907.

No. 01-0537/AR. U.S. v. Sean L. EVANS. CCA 9900925.

No. 01-0582/AR. U.S. v. Jeremy K. HACKENBERG. CCA 9801652.

No. 01-0651/AF. U.S. v. Mark A. HERNANDEZ. CCA 34080.

No. 01-0660/MC. U.S. v. Timothy A. WITHAM. CCA 2000-00039.

No. 01-0670/AF. U.S. v. Michael D. LOGAN. CCA 33942.

No. 01-0672/AF. U.S. v. Darat POOKMOH. CCA 34254.

No. 01-0701/AF. U.S. v. Kristopher M. SONON. CCA 34222.

No. 01-0702/AF. U.S. v. Terry D. SALA. CCA S29735.

No. 01-0705/AF. U.S. v. Journal M. GIBBS. CCA 33986.

No. 01-0742/AF. U.S. v. Blake W. NOBLES. CCA 33975.

No. 01-0744/AF. U.S. v. Bryan S. TAYLOR. CCA 34269.

No. 01-0770/AR. U.S. v. Lionel R. WEBSTER. CCA 20000666.

No. 01-0793/AF. U.S. v. April M. FOX. CCA 34376.

No. 01-0815/AF. U.S. v. William H. PIPPIN. CCA 34508.

No. 01-0870/AR. U.S. v. Terry J. KINDRICK. CCA 9601784.

Misc. No. 01-8029/AF. United States, respondent, v. John R. KEELER, petitioner. Motion to appeal which this Court construes as a petition for reconsideration of this Court’s order dated April 5, 2001, denied.

No. 01-0084/AR. U.S. v. Shawn H. RICHARDS. CCA 9700809. Motion filed by University of Virginia School of Law, Criminal Justice Program seeking permission to appear pro hac vice, to appear as Amicus Curiae, and to present oral argument granted.

No. 00-0671/AF. U.S. v. Bruce W. YARBROUGH. CCA 32964.

No. 00-5004/MC. U.S. v. Anthony QUIROZ. CCA 98-1864.

No. 01-0736/AF. U.S. v. Rafael FIGUEROA. CCA 34020. Appellant's motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.

No. 01-0788/AF. U.S. v. Demitri A. SHEPHERD. CCA 34311. Appellant's motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.

No. 01-0869/AR. U.S. v. Michael L. SMITH. CCA 9900952.

Misc. No. 01-8039/NA. United States, appellee, v. Roger A. HOUSE, appellant. CCA 2000-1561. Writ-appeal petition for review of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b).

No. 01-0371/AR. United States, appellee, v. Andrew J. STEPHANY, appellant. CCA 9900071. Petition for reconsideration of the order of the Court issued on August 9, 2001, denied and appellant’s motion to admit defense appellate exhibit H granted.

No. 00-5004/MC. U.S. v. Anthony QUIROZ. CCA 98-1864. Appellee's motion to remand the case to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals denied.

No. 01-0351/AF. U.S. v. Bernard D. BURT. CCA 33429. Appellee's motion to file corrected page granted.

No. 01-0387/NA. U.S. v. Toro KHAMSOUK. CCA 9900711. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file final brief granted up to and including October 1, 2001.

No. 01-0421/AF. U.S. v. Edgar E. CORTEGUERA, Jr. CCA 33067. Appellee's motion to file corrected page denied as moot.

No. 01-0295/AR. U.S. v. John S. STONEMAN. CCA 9800137. Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY DENYING THE DEFENSE'S MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE PANEL WAS PROPERLY SELECTED SO AS NOT TO INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST BRIGADE WHO RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM THE BRIGADE COMMANDER, AND/OR ATTENDED THE RELATED BRIEFING IN WHICH THE COMMANDER STATED HIS INTENT TO "CRUSH" THOSE WHO DID NOT LIVE UP TO A CERTAIN STANDARD.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY FAILING TO SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE GOVERNMENT ONCE THE DEFENSE ESTABLISHED A CASE OF UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE BY MAKING A WRITTEN MOTION, APPENDING AN INCRIMINATING E-MAIL MESSAGE TO THE MOTION, AND PROFFERING TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS TO A BRIEFING AT WHICH THE BRIGADE COMMANDER MADE INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS ABOUT DISCIPLINE IN THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL COURT MEMBERS.

III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN ATTEMPTING TO "RECREATE" THE UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE HEARING THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED.

IV. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HER DISCRETION BY DENYING THE DEFENSE'S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST PANEL MEMBERS WHO RECEIVED AN E-MAIL MESSAGE FROM THEIR BRIGADE COMMANDER THAT CONTAINED STATEMENTS REGARDING HIS INTENT TO "CRUSH" THOSE WHO DID NOT LIVE UP TO A CERTAIN STANDARD.

IV. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE PROPERLY DETERMINED THE RELIABILITY AND RELEVANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE NEW AUTO-CARVE SOFTWARE USED BY THE OSI IN RECOVERING DATA FROM APPELLANT'S COMPUTER. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 1999); G.E. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); United States v. Houser, 36 MJ 392 (CMA 1993).

No. 00-0730/AF. U.S. v. Abdullah H. BEY. CCA S29571.

No. 01-0366/AF. U.S. v. William H. ALLEN, Jr. CCA 32851.

No. 01-0566/AF. U.S. v. Rodney J. ANDERSON. CCA 33862.

No. 01-0608/AF. U.S. v. James E. BERKHEIMER. CCA 33971.

No. 01-0612/AF. U.S. v. Sabrina N. JOHNSON. CCA S29770.

No. 01-0861/AF. U.S. v. Ryan S. CORLETT. CCA S29908.

No. 01-0862/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas S. DUDA. CCA S29838.

No. 01-0863/AF. U.S. v. Jered N. FARRAR. CCA 34503.

No. 01-0864/AF. U.S. v. Monequea L. FLETCHER. CCA 34459.

No. 01-0865/AF. U.S. v. Kevin D. GAMBLE. CCA 34315.

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

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

No. 01-0868/NA. U.S. v. Charlsie A.M. MORTON. CCA 9900830.

No. 01-0665/MC. U.S. v. Daric C. BURR. CCA 200001910. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 15, 2001.

No. 01-0731/MC. U.S. v. Manuel J. CHACON. CCA 01-0151. Appellee's motion to file answer to supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

No. 01-0748/MC. U.S. v. Julian M. THIGPIN, III. CCA 20-0100944.

Appellee's motion to file answer to supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

No. 00-0594/AR. U.S. v. Joel Z. MOMENT. CCA 9900604. The record was returned to the Clerk’s Office on August 30, 2001, in accordance with the order of this Court dated February 14, 2001, and has been referred to the Court for further consideration.

No. 01-0561/AF. U.S. v. Jason L. SWECKER. CCA 99-44.

No. 01-0598/AF. U.S. v. Keno K. ARMSTRONG. CCA 33640.

No. 01-0652/AF. U.S. v. Steven M. JAMES. CCA 33965.

No. 01-0683/AF. U.S. v. Winifred J. THOMPSON. CCA S29862.

No. 01-0699/AF. U.S. v. Darren E. WHITFIELD. CCA 34029.

No. 01-0855/AF. U.S. v. Timothy P. VIOLETTE. CCA 34405.

No. 01-0856/AF. U.S. v. Linda C. PRETZMAN. CCA 34401.

No. 01-0857/AF. U.S. v. Jeanne PETERSON. CCA S29893.

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

No. 01-0859/AF. U.S. v. Branden P. CARPOFF. CCA S29860.

No. 01-0860/AF. U.S. v. Charles E. YOUNG. CCA S29673.

No. 01-0663/AR. U.S. v. Daniel E. MORGAN. CCA 9601890. Appellant's motion to file index to supplement to petition for grant of review granted.

No. 99-0744/AR. U.S. v. Francis L. FRELIX-VANN. CCA 9701014.

No. 01-0620/AF. U.S. v. Lesly PHANPHIL. CCA 33484. Review granted on the following issues:

I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA TO CHARGE III WAS
IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO
DEVELOP THE FACTUAL PREDICATE FOR MATERIALITY OF THE
LAWFULNESS OF THE SALE.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE'S INSTRUCTION TO THE MEMBERS REGARDING THE ELEMENT OF MATERIALITY WAS PLAIN ERROR.

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

No. 01-0662/AR. U.S. v. Ispahani HOSEIN. CCA 9800254. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including September 28, 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 motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 9, 2001.

No. 01-0607/AF. U.S. v. Bertram T. DANIELS. CCA 33761. Review granted on the following issue:

Misc. No. 01-8035/NA. United States, appellee, v. Walter S. STEVENSON, appellant. CCA 99-0769. Writ-appeal petition denied without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the matters asserted in the writ-appeal petition during the course of normal appellate review if he is convicted.

Misc. No. 01-8037/AF. United States, appellee, v. Leslie D. RILEY, appellant CCA 2001-05. Writ-appeal petition denied without prejudice to appellant’s right to assert the matter raised in the writ-appeal petition after the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals render an opinion on the case remanded by this Court (United States v. Riley, 55 MJ 185 (2001)).

No. 01-0057/AR. U.S. v. Kirk S. BYINGTON. CCA 9800580. On consideration of the motions filed by appellant styled as a "motion to practice before the Court pursuant to Rule 33; for the attached documents" and "request for sixty-day enlargement of time to file initial matters in Grostefon" and the motion filed by appellate defense counsel for a sixty-day extension of time to file a supplement to petition for grant of review wherein counsel notes that appellant "wishes no one from the defense appellate division to file any documents on his behalf", the motions filed by appellant, which this Court construes as a request to proceed pro se and for an extension of time are denied; that the motion filed by the appellate defense counsel be and the same is hereby denied; that appellate defense counsel shall file a supplement to the petition for grant of review on or before October 12, 2001; and no documents received directly from appellant will be docketed by this Court.

No. 01-0622/AF. U.S. v. Douglas A. PRICE. CCA 33503. Appellant's motion to submit documents and appellee’s motion to submit documents granted.

No. 01-0653/AF. U.S. v. Christopher T. MILES. CCA 34094. Appellant's motion to submit document denied.

No. 01-0661/CG. U.S. v. John D. ANDERSON. CCA 1138.

Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

No. 01-8035/NA. U.S. v. Walter S. STEVENSON. CCA 99-0769. Appellant's motion to inform Court of changes of military judge and trial date granted.

No. 01-0426/AR. U.S. v. Edward A. HUMPHERYS. CCA 9800141. Review granted on the following issues:

No. 01-0464/AF. U.S. v. Joshua L. WATSON. CCA 33124.

No. 01-0628/AF. U.S. v. Helen J. VOGEL. CCA 33945.

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

No. 01-0852/AR. U.S. v. Brett WRIGHT. CCA 9700470.

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

No. 01-0530/AR. U.S. v. James A. ANGONE. CCA 9901157. Review granted on the following issues:

No. 01-0697/AR. U.S. v. Stephen R. BEATON. CCA 20000429.

No. 01-0707/AF. U.S. v. Milton E. BAILEY. CCA S29807.

No. 01-0709/AR. U.S. v. Timothy W. DONEGAN. CCA 20000715.

No. 01-0836/AR. U.S. v. Eric R. MOTLEY. CCA 20000247.

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. 01-0841/AF. U.S. v. Jessica A. LUCAS. CCA 34467.

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

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

No. 01-0844/AF. U.S. v. Robert J. MCCLINTOCK. CCA S29841.

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

No. 01-0846/AF. U.S. v. Stephanie L. NORRIS. CCA S29902.

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

No. 01-0848/AF. U.S. v. Charles SHAW. CCA 34418.

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

No. 01-0850/AF. U.S. v. Darrel L. WILLETT. CCA 34063.

No. 01-0050/MC. U.S. v. Phillip S. OXENDINE. CCA 99-0381.

No. 01-0601/AF. U.S. v. David L. FIELDS. CCA 33736. Appellant's motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.

No. 01-0597/AR. U.S. v. Lavelle SWINTON-CONWAY. CCA 9900238. Appellant's third motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 7, 2001.

No. 01-0645/AR. U.S. v. James R. WOOD. CCA 9900196. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including September 12, 2001; and that absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0755/AR. U.S. v. Frederick WALKER. CCA 9801836. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 5, 2001.

No. 01-0757/AR. U.S. v. Daniel N. SWARTZ. CCA 9800295.
Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to October 5, 2001.

No. 97-0569/AR. U.S. v. Matthew M. CLARK. CCA 9501018.
Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted.

No. 97-0597/AF. U.S. v. Warren L. DINGES. CCA 32122.

No. 99-0252/NA. U.S. v. Terrance M. JONES. CCA 97-0486.

No. 01-0205/AR. U.S. v. Wayne L. JONES. CCA 9900336. On consideration of the granted issue at 54 MJ 453 (2001), and in view of this Court’s decision in United States v. James, 55 MJ 297 (2001), the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 01-0403/AF. U.S. v. Barry V. O'CONNOR. CCA 33671. On consideration of the granted issue at 55 MJ ___ (Daily Journal July 19, 2001), and in view of this Court’s decision in United States v. James, 55 MJ 297 (2001), the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

No. 01-0833/AR. U.S. v. Alan M. YAMAMOTO. CCA 9900761.

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

No. 01-0835/AR. U.S. v. Thomas N. JOHNSON, III. CCA 9900699.

No. 00-0592/NA. U.S. v. Terry W. JAMES. CCA 99-0435.

No. 01-0010/AR. U.S. v. Gregory K. WILLIAMS. CCA 9601112.

Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the following persons whose terms will expire on September 30, 2001, are, this 5th day of September 2001, hereby reappointed to the Rules Advisory Committee for a term expiring on September 30, 2004:

Prof. Steven H. Goldblatt, Chair

Dwight H. Sullivan, Esq.

LTC Denise R. Lind, JA, U.S. Army, is hereby appointed to replace Mr. William S. Fulton, Jr., whose term will expire on September 30, 2001. LTC Lind’s term will expire on September 30, 2004.

Mr. Thomas F. Granahan, Esq., is hereby appointed to replace Mr. Kenneth S. Geller, Esq., whose term will expire on September 30, 2001. Mr. Granahan’s term will expire on September 30, 2004.

Mr. Joseph A. Neurauter, Esq., whose term was to expire on September 30, 2003, has submitted his resignation from the Rules Advisory Committee. A replacement for Mr. Neurauter will be named on a later date.

Commander Richard W. Bagley, JAGC, U.S. Navy, whose term was to expire on September 30, 2003, has also submitted his resignation from the Committee. Captain Carol J. Cooper, JAGC, U.S. Navy, is hereby appointed to replace Commander Bagley. Captain Cooper’s term will expire on September 30, 2003.

The following members, whose terms expire on the dates indicated below, remain on the Rules Advisory Committee:

To expire September 30, 2002:
Mark J. Biros, Esq.
Prof. Mary M. Cheh
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Esq.
Colonel James A. Young, USAF

To expire September 30, 2003:
Hon. Joseph H. Baum
John F. DePue, Esq.

William A. DeCicco, Clerk of the Court, is an ex officio member of the Committee and serves as its Reporter.

The Court expresses its deepest appreciation to Mr. William S. Fulton, Jr., Mr. Kenneth S. Geller, Mr. Joseph A. Neurauter, and Commander Richard Bagley for their outstanding service as members of the Rules Advisory Committee.

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

No. 00-0319/NA. U.S. v. Ricky L. LAMBERT. CCA 97-2027. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file petition for reconsideration granted.

No. 00-0592/NA. U.S. v. Terry W. JAMES. CCA 99-0435. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file petition for reconsideration granted.

No. 01-0387/NA. U.S. v. Toro KHAMSOUK. CCA 9900711. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including September 17, 2001; and that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 01-0519/AR. U.S. v. Edwin R. PALAGAR. CCA 9900781. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file final brief granted to September 13, 2001.

No. 01-0622/AF. U.S. v. Douglas A. PRICE. CCA 33503. Appellant's
motion to file reply brief out of time granted.

No. 01-0751/MC. U.S. v. Michael D. SHEPPERD. CCA 01-0080. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to September 18, 2001.

No. 01-8035/NA. U.S. v. Walter S. STEVENSON. CCA 99-0769. Appellant's
motion to substitute pages granted.

No. 01-0077/AR. U.S. v. David M. ROESELER. CCA 9900760.

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

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