UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-180

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

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

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

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-179

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

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

 

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

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

 

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

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

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



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-178

Monday, June 28, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

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

  



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-177

Friday, June 25, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

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

  



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-176

Thursday, June 24, 2004


ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

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

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-175

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

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

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

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

 

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

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

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

 


  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-174

Tuesday, June 22, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-173

Monday, June 21, 2004


ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

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

 

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

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

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

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

  



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-172

Friday, June 18, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

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

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

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

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

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

No. 04-0558/AF.  U.S. v. Whitney G. SMITH.  CCA 35650.

  



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-171

Thursday, June 17, 2004

 
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0119/AF.  U.S. v. Anthony W. WARNER.  CCA 34716.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF SEEKING A FULLY COMPETENT EXPERT CONSULTANT.

 

II. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED ARTICLE 46, RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 703, AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BY ALLOWING THE ASSISTANT TRIAL COUNSEL TO SELECT THE DEFENSE EXPERT CONSULTANT AND PROVIDE ADVERSE EX PARTE ADVICE TO THE CONVENING AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR AN EXPERT CONSULTANT.

 

No. 04-0284/AF.  U.S. v. Allan P. JAMES.  CCA 34863.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY REFUSING TO PERMIT DEFENSE COUNSEL TO EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL BIAS OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARISING FROM PROMISES BY THE GOVERNMENT TO LIMIT PUNISHMENT OF THE WITNESSES IN EXCHANGE FOR COOPERATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PROSECUTION OF APPELLANT.

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN GRANTING THE PROSECUTION'S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE (OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION) AGAINST A COURT MEMBER.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0552/AR.  U.S. v. Kelly J. GLASS.  CCA 20030638.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-170

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0551/AR.  U.S. v. Edward D. HOWARD.  CCA 20010787.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0386/AR.  U.S. v. Eric L. GASPER.  CCA 20010801.  Appellant's motion to attach granted.

 

No. 04-0445/AR.  U.S. v. William J. MARKO.  CCA 20020847.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, up to and including July 1, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0500/AR.  U.S. v. Kristina L. COSSICH.  CCA 20020856.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 16, 2004.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-169

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

 
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0177/NA.  U.S. v. John M. LYDY.  CCA 200200005.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

     WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S VERBATIM REPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER BRIEF AS THAT COURT'S OPINION CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEGATES ANY APPEARANCE OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPINION.

 

No. 04-0295/AR.  U.S. v. Eric MCNUTT.  CCA 20020022.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXTRANEOUS PREJUDICIAL INFORMATION IMPROPERLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SENTENCING AUTHORITY AND NO BASIS FOR IMPEACHING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE UNDER MIL.R.EVID. 606(b).

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE COLLATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECT OF THE ARMY REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES' POLICY OF GRANTING A SERVICE MEMBER FIVE DAYS OF CONFINEMENT CREDIT PER MONTH FOR SENTENCES WHICH INCLUDE LESS THAN TWELVE MONTHS OF CONFINEMENT IN ADJUDGING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE.

 

No. 04-0382/AF.  U.S. v. Patrick A. MIZGALA.  CCA 34822.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S ARTICLE 10, UCMJ, RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS WAIVED BY AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT BRING APPELLANT TO TRIAL WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL LITIGATED THE MATTER AT TRIAL, AND APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S ARTICLE 10, UCMJ, RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL WAS VIOLATED IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT BRING APPELLANT TO TRIAL WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0281/AF.  U.S. v. Jarwanza A. PROCTOR.  CCA 34532.

No. 04-0320/AR.  U.S. v. Antonio B. JONES.  CCA 20000836.

No. 04-0376/AR.  U.S. v. Jovan F. M. WILLIAMS.  CCA 20020289.

No. 04-0403/AR.  U.S. v. Allen L. REED.  CCA 20010760.

No. 04-0416/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy L. BROWN.  CCA 20021394.

No. 04-0424/AF.  U.S. v. Nickolas J. ANDROSKY.  CCA S30343.

No. 04-0425/AF.  U.S. v. Jerome H. BROWN.  CCA S30429.

No. 04-0434/AF.  U.S. v. Bjay A. BORDEN.  CCA S30363.

No. 04-0444/AR.  U.S. v. James S. BRADY.  CCA 20020776.

No. 04-0469/AF.  U.S. v. Jason D. MAKI.  CCA S30105.

No. 04-0471/AR.  U.S. v. George B. SMITH.  CCA 20010585.

No. 04-0481/AF.  U.S. v. David D. GARZA, Jr.  CCA S30198.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 98-0783/NA.  U.S. v. Michael W. FRICKE.  CCA 199601293.*/

No. 04-0549/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew V. PREINESBERGER.  CCA 20030083.

No. 04-0550/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew CARTER, Jr.  CCA 20030055.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0694/AR.  U.S. v. Darrell L. SHELTON.  CCA 9900816.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including June 29, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0208/AR.  U.S. v. Keith L. WILLIAMS, Jr.  CCA 20020327.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including June 29, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0489/AR.  U.S. v. Everette J. HARMON.  CCA 20010697.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 12, 2004.

____________

 

*/  Second petition filed in this case.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-168

Monday, June 14, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0545/AR.  U.S. v. James M. HARRIS.  CCA 20030015.

No. 04-0546/AR.  U.S. v. Deanna A. INGRAM.  CCA 20030674.

No. 04-0547/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph J. LOEHR.  CCA 35662.

No. 04-0548/AF.  U.S. v. Aaron T. STEINER.  CCA S30446.



 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-167

Thursday, June 10, 2004

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-5005/NA.  United States, Appellant, v. Todd R. FORBES, Appellee.  CCA 9901454.  The Judge Advocate General, United States Navy, requests that action be taken with respect to the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY GIVING THE STANDARD INSTRUCTION ON APPELLEE’S SILENCE OVER APPELLEE’S OBJECTION WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE BELIEVED THE INSTRUCTION WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE MEMBERS FROM QUESTIONING APPELLEE’S SILENCE AND HOLDING IT AGAINST HIM.

 

II. SHOULD THE COURT FIND THE MILITARY JUDGE DID ERR, WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THERE WAS A PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE FOR THIS INSTRUCTIONAL ERROR, REQUIRING AUTOMATIC REVERSAL UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT REBUTS THE PRESUMPTION BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

  


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-166

Wednesday, June 09, 2004


APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 01-0403/AF.  U.S. v. Barry V. O’CONNOR.  CCA 33671.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 02-0801/AR.  U.S. v. Ann M. BRENNAN.  CCA 20000401.  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.1/  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 01-0403/AF.  U.S. v. Barry V. O’CONNOR.  CCA 33671.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 02-0801/AR.  U.S. v. Ann M. BRENNAN.  CCA 20000401.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0217/AF.  U.S. v. Richard ISRAEL, Jr.  CCA 34877.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED MEANINGFUL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF KEY GOVERNMENT WITNESSES IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE PREVENTED TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM CONFRONTING THE WITNESSES WITH MATERIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE.

 

No. 04-0240/AR.  U.S. v. Bartholomew M. BERRY.  CCA 20000960.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED HOMOSEXUAL ACTS BETWEEN APPELLANT WHEN HE WAS THIRTEEN YEARS OLD, AND A SIX-YEAR-OLD BOY, EIGHT YEARS BEFORE THE CHARGED OFFENSE OF FORCIBLE SODOMY WITH AN ADULT SOLDIER.

 

 

No. 04-0340/MC.  U.S. v. Michael D. BAIER.  CCA 02-0476.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, IN RELYING ON UNITED STATES V. ROJAS, 15 M.J. 902 (N-M.C.M.R. 1983) AND UNITED STATES V. USRY, 9 M.J. 701 (N-M.C.M.R. 1980), APPLIED THE CORRECT LEGAL STANDARD IN REVIEWING APPELLANT'S SENTENCE APPROPRIATENESS ARGUMENT.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0267/AR.  U.S. v. Michael, P. RUGGIA.  CCA 20021067.

No. 04-0296/NA.  U.S. v. Jacob C. TAYLOR.  CCA 200301698.2/

No. 04-0367/AR.  U.S. v. David W. BEATTY.  CCA 20021390.

No. 04-0370/AR.  U.S. v. Rodney T. ALLEN.  CCA 20010021.

No. 04-0406/MC.  U.S. v. Robert FIELDS.  CCA 200101778.3/

No. 04-0503/NA.  U.S. v. James M. HULBERT.  CCA 200101751.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0121/AR.  U.S. v. Corey G. WASHINGTON.  CCA 20030093.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that Appellant has asserted the following issue under United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982):

 

WHETHER APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD A DIRECT CONFLICT OF

INTEREST BETWEEN APPELLANT AND TWO OFFICERS CHARGED WITH

THE SAME FORM OF MISCONDUCT.

 

The allied papers in the record of trial contain a pretrial memorandum to the Article 32 investigating officer in which the detailed defense counsel stated that he had a conflict of interest that prevented him from representing Appellant.  The same defense counsel, however, stated at the outset of trial that “no member of the defense has acted in any manner which might tend to disqualify us in this court-martial,” and he represented Appellant throughout the trial.

 

The record contains no explanation that would reconcile the apparent contradiction between detailed defense counsel’s pretrial and trial statements.  We conclude that additional facts are necessary to supplement the record on this issue in order to permit appropriate judicial review.  Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for transmission to an appropriate convening authority to convene a fact-finding hearing.  See United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967).  At the conclusion of the hearing, the military judge will enter findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of whether a conflict of interest existed between Appellant and his defense counsel.  The record will be transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66.  Thereafter, Article 67 will apply.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0544/AF.  U.S. v. Michael E. LYNCH.  CCA 35659.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 01-0403/AF.  U.S. v. Barry V. O’CONNOR.  CCA 33671.  Appellant's motion to submit documents granted.

 

____________

 

1/  Judge Gierke did not participate.

 

2/  It is directed that the promulgating order be amended to reflect the correct date the sentence was adjudged.

 

3/  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected by deleting the words “but Guilty to the Lesser Included Offense of wrongful appropriation” from footnote *.  Also, add the following words to footnote II:  “The accused originally pleaded Not Guilty to Charge III and its sole Specification, but Guilty to the Lesser Included Offense of wrongful appropriation.  However, after the providence inquiry, the military judge did not accept the accused’s plea and entered a plea of Not Guilty on his behalf.”

  



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-165

Tuesday, June 08, 2004


ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0081/AF.  U.S. v. Mathew P. SCHEURER.  CCA 34866.  Review granted on the following issues raised by appellate defense counsel:

 

I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IMPROPERLY CONDUCTED ITS APPELLATE REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66(C), UCMJ, BY CONSIDERING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. HOLT, 58 M.J. 227 (C.A.A.F. 2003).

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION BY ADMITTING AN ACCOMPLICE'S STATEMENTS WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT ALL REFERNCES TO APPELLANT BE REDACTED.

 

III. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S CONVICTION UNDER ARTICLE 111, UCMJ, WHERE THE PROSECUTION DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT PHYSICALLY CONTROLLED A VEHICLE WHILE IMPAIRED.

 

And the following issue specified by the Court:

 

IV. WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WALTERS, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2003), THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY TO SPECIFICATIONS 3 AND 5 OF THE ORIGINAL CHARGE AND ADDITIONAL CHARGE I AND ITS SUPPORTING SPECIFICATION MAY BE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL WHERE THE FACT FINDER EXCEPTED THE PHRASE "ON DIVERS OCCASIONS" AND SUBSTITUTED NOTHING IN ITS PLACE.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0308/NA.  U.S. v. Lorraine D. PANDT-BROWN.  CCA 200301430.

No. 04-0441/AF.  U.S. v. Michael J. CHRISMAN.  CCA S30412.

No. 04-0454/AR.  U.S. v. Eric P. SCOTT.  CCA 20021233.

No. 04-0475/NA.  U.S. v. Malcom V. ELAM.  CCA 200000387.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0245/AR.  U.S. v. James R. HAMP.  CCA 20000306.  On consideration of Appellee’s motion to attach the essential findings of the military judge on a defense suppression motion, it is ordered that Appellee’s motion to attach is denied without prejudice to submit the motion to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals.  It is further ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further review under Article 66.  Following these proceedings, Article 67(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 867(a), will apply.

 

No. 04-6001/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew T. FENWRICK.  CCA 2003-06.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 862, said petition is denied.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0543/AR.  U.S. v. Marvin JACOBS.  CCA 20021099.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 00-0679/AR.  U.S. v. Jermain J. BEST.  CCA 9701222.

Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 6, 2004.

 

No. 04-0327/AR.  U.S. v. Anwar C. GEORGE.  CCA 20010884.  On consideration of Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time, it is ordered that appellate defense counsel file a motion to file out of time which complies with the requirement of United States v. Ortiz, 24 M.J. 323 (C.M.A. 1987), on or before June 18, 2004.  See United States v. Brunson, 59 M.J. 41 (C.A.A.F. 2003).

 

No. 04-0372/MC.  U.S. v. Jeremy D. THOMPSON.  CCA 200101956.  Appellant's motion to attach granted.

 

No. 04-0400/NA.  U.S. v. Michael P. HONAKER.  CCA 200301700.  Appellant's motion to attach denied.

 

No. 04-0456/AF.  U.S. v. Bryan L. SMITH.  CCA 34754.  Appellant's motion to attach documents granted.

 

No. 04-0483/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew L. DAUGHERTY.  CCA 20030930.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 6, 2004.

  



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 164

Monday, June 07, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0323/AR.  U.S. v. Robert T. MARTIN Jr.  CCA 20020166.

No. 04-0351/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew G. CONYERS.  CCA 20030023.

No. 04-0357/CG.  U.S. v. Crystal A. KESSLER.  CCA 1190.

No. 04-0394/AR.  U.S. v. Quincy L. SMITH.  CCA 20020562.

No. 04-0399/AR.  U.S. v. Michael J. PEED.  CCA 20030614.

No. 04-0404/AR.  U.S. v. Richmond A. TEAL.  CCA 20020144.

No. 04-0407/AF.  U.S. v. Darrin G. BARTLEY.  CCA S30390.

No. 04-0409/AF.  U.S. v. Todd J. GERBERT.  CCA S30465.

No. 04-0412/AF.  U.S. v. David B. MCLAUGHLIN.  CCA 35725.

No. 04-0420/AR.  U.S. v. James L. TURNER IV.  CCA 20021065.

No. 04-0422/AR.  U.S. v. Charles J. MORRIS.  CCA 20020234.

No. 04-0423/AF.  U.S. v. Peter E. MORGAN.  CCA S30380.

No. 04-0430/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua A. HAYNES.  CCA 35757.

No. 04-0436/AR.  U.S. v. Clinest L. HAWKINS III.  CCA 20031076.

No. 04-0476/NA.  U.S. v. Aaron J. JORAMO.  CCA 200300723.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0541/AR.  U.S. v. Cornilius D. GOULD.  CCA 20030672.

No. 04-0542/MC.  U.S. v. Christian M. STERLING.  CCA 200000518.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-8016/AF.  Harry M. SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee.  CCA 2004-01.  Appellant's motion to submit granted and Appellee’s motion to submit record of trial and documents and motion to submit granted.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-163

Friday, June 04, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0280/AF.  U.S. v. Robert RAMOS.  CCA 35364.

No. 04-0292/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan J. VILMO.  CCA 20021105.

No. 04-0319/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel R. SHAULIS.  CCA 20030415.

No. 04-0330/NA.  U.S. v. Amber C. BOYD.  CCA 200301254.

No. 04-0383/AR.  U.S. v. Eric R. NORTON-ARAGON.  CCA 20030479.

No. 04-0390/AF.  U.S. v. Torri K. RAYFORD.  CCA 35552.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0537/AR.  U.S. v. Cleophus JACKSON.  CCA 20020793.

No. 04-0538/AF.  U.S. v. Edward A. BARKLEY, II.  CCA S30142.

No. 04-0539/AF.  U.S. v. Shawn O. SPENCER.  CCA S30204.

No. 04-0540/AF.  U.S. v. Michael A. BARRIER.  CCA S30160.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-162

Thursday, June 03, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0535/AR.  U.S. v. Brennan C. EMERSON.  CCA 20030605.

No. 04-0536/AR.  U.S. v. Jerome G. CARR, Jr.  CCA 20031111.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 03-0212/AR.  U.S. v. Billy E. CAIN.  CCA 9800797.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-161

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0534/AR.  U.S. v. Roger L. HAMPTON.  CCA 20021295.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 03-0361/AR.  U.S. v. David R. THOMPSON.  CCA 2000342.

No. 03-0557/MC.  U.S. v. Michael D. STRAND.  CCA 200000275.

No. 04-0027/AR.  U.S. v. Cameron T. FELDER.  CCA 20021011.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-160

Tuesday, June 01, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0531/AR.  U.S. v. Roddy E. RUMMEL, Jr.  CCA 20031140.

No. 04-0532/AR.  U.S. v. John J. BUSSO.  CCA 20021365.

No. 04-0533/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth J. BETTS, I.  CCA 35218.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 04-8021/AF.  United States, Respondent, v. Doncosta E. SEAWELL, Petitioner.  Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus denied; Petitioner’s motion to submit documents granted; and Respondent’s motion to submit a corrected page granted.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0647/AR.  U.S. v. Ray T. LEAK.  CCA 20000356.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted up to and including June 28, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0042/AR.  U.S. v. Shapour MEGHDADI.  CCA 20000029.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted up to and including June 28, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0381/AR.  U.S. v. Cedric L. AARON.  CCA 20000747.  Appellant's motion to correct errata granted.

 

No. 04-0470/AR.  U.S. v. James H. HILL.  CCA 20000208.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to June 25, 2004.

 

No. 04-0473/AR.  U.S. v. Edward GOODWIN.  CCA 20020248.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 1, 2004.

 

No. 04-5004/AR.  U.S. v. Charles E. SINGLETON.  CCA 20010376.  Appellee's motion to extend time to file an answer to final brief granted up to and including June 25, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 


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