UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-040
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0444/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
03-0538/MC.
No.
06-0161/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No.
06-8002/AR. Donald W. GOFF, Jr.,
Petitioner, v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No.
06-8002/AR. Donald W. GOFF, Jr.,
Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0266/MC.
No. 05-0300/NA.
No. 05-5003/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE ACTION BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS ON THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THAT COURT’S RULES IS SUBJECT TO
CERTIFICATION
UNDER ARTICLE 67(a)(2) AND REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 67(c), UNIFORM CODE OF
MILITARY
JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2), 867(c) (2000).
II.
IF SO, WHETHER A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS AN
AVAILABLE REMEDY IN RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE CERTIFIED TO THE COURT UNDER
ARTICLE
67(a)(2), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2)
(2000); AND,
IF AVAILABLE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THIS CASE.
III.
WHETHER THE ACTION BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ON THE MOTION TO
SUSPEND
THAT COURT’S RULES IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND RELIEF UNDER THE ALL WRITS
ACT, 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a).
IV.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S ABATEMENT RULING
OR ANY PROCEDURAL MATTERS RELATING THERETO MAY BE APPEALED BY THE
GOVERNMENT
UNDER ARTICLE 62(a)(1), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 10 U.S.C. §
862(a)(1)
(2000).
The brief of the
No.
06-0060/AF.
No.
06-0064/NA.
1/
Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-039
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0584/MC.
No.
05-0616/AR.
No.
05-0675/AR.
No.
05-0712/AF.
No.
05-0735/AR.
No.
06-0024/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0159/AR.
No.
06-0160/MC.
____________
1/
It is
directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that
redesignated
Specification 2 of Additional Charge I was amended prior to findings to
conform
with the plea.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-038
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0143/AR.
No.
06-0144/AR.
No.
06-0145/AR.
No.
06-0146/AR.
No.
06-0147/AR.
No.
06-0148/AR.
No.
06-0149/AR.
No.
06-0150/AR.
No.
06-0151/AR.
No.
06-0152/AR.
No.
06-0153/AF.
No.
06-0154/AF.
No.
06-0155/AF.
No.
06-0156/AF.
No.
06-0157/AF.
No.
06-0158/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
02-0048/AF.
No.
05-0263/MC.
DOES
A MERE DUTY TO INTERVENE AND SUBSEQUENT INACTION CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT
GROUNDS
TO CONVICT APPELLANT OF ASSAULT UNDER AN AIDER AND ABETTOR THEORY?
No further briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
It
is further ordered that the issue specified by the Court on
No.
05-0500/NA.
No.
05-0766/AR.
Appellant's second motion to extend time to
file a supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but
only up to and including
No.
06-0008/AF.
No.
06-0050/AR.
No.
06-0052/NA.
No.
06-0074/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-037
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0142/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-036
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
03-0141/AF.
No.
06-0131/AR.
No.
06-0132/AR.
No.
06-0133/AF.
No.
06-0134/AF.
No.
06-0135/AF.
No.
06-0136/AF.
No.
06-0137/AF.
No.
06-0138/AF.
No.
06-0139/AF.
No.
06-0140/AF.
No.
06-0141/AF.
____________
1/
Third
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-035
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0646/MC.
No.
05-0657/AR.
No.
05-0671/AF.
No.
05-0727/AF.
No.
05-0732/AR.
No.
05-0734/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0372/MC.
No.
06-0122/AR.
No.
06-0123/AR.
No.
06-0124/AR.
No.
06-0125/AR.
No.
06-0126/NA.
No.
06-0127/NA.
No.
06-0128/MC.
No.
06-0129/MC.
No.
06-0130/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0030/AR.
No.
06-0035/AR.
No.
06-0036/AR.
No.
06-0051/AR.
____________
1/
Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-034
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0110/AR.
No.
06-0111/AR.
No.
06-0112/AR.
No.
06-0113/AR.
No.
06-0114/AR.
No.
06-0115/AF.
No.
06-0116/AF.
No.
06-0117/AF.
No.
06-0118/AF.
No.
06-0119/NA.
No.
06-0120/MC.
No.
06-0121/MC.
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-033
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0733/AR.
No.
05-0738/AR.
No.
06-0013/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0103/AF.
No.
06-0104/AF.
No.
06-0105/AF.
No.
06-0106/AF.
No.
06-0107/AF.
No.
06-0108/AF.
No.
06-0109/NA.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 05-8042/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-032
CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED
No. 06-5002/CG.
I.
DID THE COAST
GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT’S
WAIVER OF
APPELLATE REVIEW WAS INVALID, ERR BY CONDUCTING A SUA SPONTE REVIEW
UNDER
ARTICLE 66(B), WHERE THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL CERTIFIED THE CASE TO
THE COURT
PURSUANT TO UCMJ ARTICLE 69(D).
II. DID THE
COAST
GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY CONCLUDING THAT RCM 1110(F),
WHICH
EXPRESSLY PERMITS AN ACCUSED TO SIGN A WAIVER OF APPELLATE REVIEW “ANY
TIME
AFTER THE SENTENCE IS ANNOUNCED,” IS CONTRARY TO UCMJ ARTICLE 61.
III. TO THE
EXTENT
UCMJ ARTICLE 61 IS AMBIGUOUS, AND GIVEN THAT CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY
GRANTED THE
PRESIDENT RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD OF MILITARY JUSTICE, MUST
AN
ARTICLE I COURT DEFER TO THE PRESIDENT’S REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF
THAT
ARTICLE.
Appellant will file a brief under Rule
22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 19th
day of
December, 2005.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0101/AR.
No.
06-0102/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
02-0513/AR.
No.
05-0127/MC.
No.
05-5002/MC.
No.
06-0034/NA.
No.
06-0067/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-031
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 02-0224/AF.
In that STAFF
SERGEANT
ROBERT S. BREWER, United States Air Force, Air Force Information
Warfare
Center, did, in Forfar, Scotland, on divers occasions between on or
about 1
September 1994 and on or about 30 September 1996, knowingly transport
in
interstate or foreign commerce, for the purpose of distribution, visual
depictions of an obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy nature. in violation of 18 USC, Section 1465.
That
Specifications 2 and 3 of the Additional Charge are amended to read as
follows:
In that STAFF
SERGEANT
ROBERT S. BREWER, United States Air Force, Air Force Information
Warfare
Center, did, in , in violation of 18
USC, Sec 2252A.
In that STAFF
SERGEANT
ROBERT S. BREWER, United States Air Force, Air Force Information
Warfare
Center, did, in San Antonio, Texas, on divers occasions between on or
about 1
December 1997 and on or about 12 January 1998, knowingly possess
videotapes
depicting child pornography in violation of 18 USC, Sec 2252A.
The
decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed
as to all Charges and Specifications, as amended above, as well as to
sentence.
CRAWFORD, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting
in part):
Because I agree
that
Appellant’s pleas were provident to lesser-included offenses under
clause 1 and
2 of Article 134, I concur in affirming Appellant’s conviction. Consistent with my dissent in Martinelli,
however, I disagree that Appellant’s guilty plea to specification 2 of
the
additional Charge was improvident to the clause 3, Article 134 offense
charged. From that portion of the order
I respectfully dissent.
No.
02-0759/AR.
GIERKE, Chief
Judge (concurring in the result):
I would reverse
based on the
military judge’s use of an unconstitutional definition of “child
pornography,” see
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting):
For the reasons
detailed in
my dissent to this Court’s opinion in Martinelli, I disagree
that
Appellant’s guilty plea to specification 1 of Charge III was
improvident. I respectfully dissent.
No. 03-0293/AF.
In that AIRMAN
AARON R. MARTENS, United States Air
Force, 86th Communications Squadron, did, at or near Ramstein Air Base,
Germany, on divers occasions between on or about 30 October 1998 and on
or
about 3 August 2000, knowingly possess materials containing images of
child
pornography, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2252A(a)(5)(A), conduct of a nature to bring
discredit
upon the armed forces.
The decision of
the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to Charge I and Charge II, including
Specification 2, as amended, as well as to the sentence.
GIERKE,
Chief Judge (concurring in the result):
I agree that
Appellant’s conviction can be affirmed
under the standard set forth in our decision in United States v.
Mason,
60 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2004). However, I
would reach that question based on our decision in United States v.
O’Connor,
58 M.J. 450 (C.A.A.F. 2003), rather than on an absence of the
extraterritorial
application of the Child Pornography Prevention Act.
See United States v. Martinelli,
62 M.J. 52, 68-77 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Gierke, C.
J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part).
CRAWFORD,
Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
Because I agree
that Appellant’s plea was provident
to a lesser-included offense under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, I
concur in
affirming Appellant’s conviction.
Consistent with my dissent in Martinelli, however, I
disagree
that Appellant’s guilty plea to specification 2 of Charge II was
improvident to
the clause 3, Article 134 offense charged.
From that portion of the order I respectfully dissent.
No. 03-0382/AR.
GIERKE,
Chief Judge (dissenting):
I would affirm
Appellant’s offenses because I
believe the Child Pornography Prevention Act applies extraterritorially
to
reach his
offenses.
See United
States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52, 68-77 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Gierke,
C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting):
For the reasons
detailed in my dissent to this Court’s
opinion in Martinelli, I disagree that Appellant’s guilty pleas
to
specifications 1 and 2 of the Charge were improvident.
I respectfully dissent.
No. 03-0390/AF.
GIERKE, Chief
Judge (dissenting):
I would affirm
Appellant’s
offense because I believe the Child Pornography Prevention Act applies
extraterritorially to reach his
offense. See United States v. Martinelli,
62 M.J. 52, 68-77 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Gierke,
C.J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part).
CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting):
For the reasons
detailed in
my dissent to this Court’s opinion in Martinelli, I disagree
that
Appellant’s guilty plea to the specification of the Charge was
improvident. I respectfully dissent.
No. 03-0629/AF.
GIERKE,
Chief Judge (concurring in the result):
I would reverse
based on the military judge’s use of
an unconstitutional definition of “child pornography,” see
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting):
For the reasons
detailed in my dissents to this
Court’s opinions in Martinelli and O’Connor, I disagree
that
Appellant’s guilty plea to Specification 1 of the Charge was
improvident. I respectfully dissent.
No. 04-0306/AR.
In that STAFF
SERGEANT NATHAN L. BURKEEN, United
States Army, USA MEDDAC, did, at or near Heidelberg, Germany, on divers
occasions between on or about 15 July 1999 and on or about 21 January
2001,
knowingly and wrongfully receive child pornography that had been
mailed,
shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by means of a
computer, to wit: downloading
electronic files containing child pornography, from the Internet and
copying
said files onto two computer hard drives and about twenty computer
diskettes
located at building 4478 on Patrick Henry Village Housing Area, in
violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2252A(a)(2).
In that STAFF
SERGEANT NATHAN L. BURKEEN, United
States Army, USA MEDDAC, did, at or near Heidelberg, Germany, on land
and in a
building used by or under the control of the United States Government,
to
wit: building 4478 on Patrick Henry
Village Housing Area, on divers occasions between on or about 15 July
1999 and
on or about 21 January 2001, knowingly and wrongfully possess two
personal hard
drives and about twenty computer diskettes containing three or more
images of
child pornography in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section
2252A(a)(5)(A).
The decision of
the United States Army Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to Charge I and Charge II, including
Specifications 1 and 2, as amended, as well as to the sentence.
GIERKE,
Chief Judge (concurring in the result):
I agree with the
majority that the charges as
amended can be affirmed. But I would not
reach that question because I do not agree that the Child Pornography
Prevention Act does not apply extraterritorially to reach Appellant’s
offenses. See United States v.
Martinelli,
62 M.J. 52, 68-77 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Gierke,
C.J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part).
CRAWFORD,
Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
Because I agree
that Appellant’s plea was provident
to lesser-included offenses under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, I
concur in
affirming Appellant’s convictions.
Consistent with my dissents in Martinelli and Reeves,
I
disagree that Appellant’s guilty pleas were improvident to the clause
3,
Article 134 offense in specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II. From that portion of the order I respectfully
dissent.
No. 04-0411/AF.
GIERKE,
Chief Judge (dissenting):
I would affirm
Appellant’s offense because I believe
the Child Pornography Prevention Act applies extraterritorially to
reach his
offense.
See United
States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52, 68-77 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Gierke,
C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
CRAWFORD,
Judge (dissenting):
For the reasons
detailed in my dissent to this
Court’s opinion in Martinelli, I disagree that Appellant’s
guilty plea
to the specification of the Charge was improvident.
I respectfully dissent.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 05-0557/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 06-0038/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 06-0094/AR.
No. 06-0095/AR.
No. 06-0096/AR.
No. 06-0097/AR.
No. 06-0098/AF.
No. 06-0099/MC.
No. 06-0100/NA.
No. 06-6002/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0270/AF.
I.
AS APPELLANT’S RECORD OF TRIAL DOES NOT
CONTAIN EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE ACTUAL OR VIRTUAL NATURE OF THE
SUBJECTS OF THE
PHOTOGRAPHIC OR ELECTRONIC IMAGES, DOES THE FACT-FINDING AUTHORITY OF
THE AIR
FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PERMIT THAT COURT TO DETERMINE, IN
LIGHT OF ALL
OTHER EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE IMAGES THEMSELVES DEPICT “ACTUAL” CHILDREN,
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT APPELLANT’S CONVICTION BASED ON TITLE 18 U.S.C. §
2252A.
II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
CAN REVIEW THE IMAGES OF ALLEGED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND AFFIRM THE
FINDINGS OF
GUILTY OF SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE V WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE
AS TRIER
OF FACT APPLIED A DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY THAT WAS, IN PART,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THE GENERAL FINDING OF GUILTY DOES NOT INFORM THE
REVIEWING COURT WHICH, IF ANY, OF THE IMAGES THE FINDER OF FACT FOUND
TO BE
“VIRTUAL” VERSUS ACTUAL CHILDREN.
III. WHETHER
THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT REVIEWED CERTAIN IMAGES OF ALLEGED CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY AND
AFFIRMED APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY UPON
ITS OWN
CONCLUSION THAT THE IMAGES WERE OF “REAL” CHILDREN WHERE APPELLANT DID
NOT HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A DEFENSE AGAINST THE LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL
DEFINITION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
IV.
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT REVIEWED CERTAIN IMAGES OF ALLEGED CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY AND
AFFIRMED APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR RECEIVING AND POSSESSING CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY
UPON ITS OWN CONCLUSION THAT THE IMAGES WERE OF “ACTUAL CHILDREN WELL
UNDER THE
AGE OF 18,” THEREBY REMOVING THE GOVERNMENT’S BURDEN OF PROVING THAT
THE IMAGES
WERE OF ACTUAL AND NOT VIRTUAL CHILDREN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN A
TRIAL
FORUM WHERE THE GOVERNMENT’S EVIDENCE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONFRONTATION
AND
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
No briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0127/MC.
No. 05-0157/NA.
No. 05-0242/AR.
No. 05-0526/NA.
No. 05-0766/AR.
1/ Specification 1 of Charge III
will
necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to allege
lesser-included
offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the
armed
forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces in
violation of
clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134, UCMJ.
2/
Specifications 1 and 2 of the Charge will
necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to allege
lesser-included
offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the
armed
forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces in
violation of
clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134, UCMJ.
3/ The sole
Specification of the
Charge will necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to
allege
lesser-included offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and
discipline in
the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces in
violation of clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134, UCMJ.
4/
Specification 1 of the Charge will
necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to allege
lesser-included
offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the
armed
forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces in
violation of
clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134, UCMJ.
5/ The sole
Specification of the
Charge will necessarily have to be amended prior to any rehearing to
allege
lesser-included offenses of conduct prejudicial to good order and
discipline in
the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces in
violation of clauses 1 and/or 2 of Article 134, UCMJ.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-030
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0552/MC.
THE
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0537/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0219/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0720/AF.
WHETHER
THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT NONE OF
THE STAFF
JUDGE ADVOCATE’S COMMENTS IN HIS ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE’S
REVIEW
CONSTITUTED NEW MATTER.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on this
issue only.
________________
*/
Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-029
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 05-0453/MC.
I.
WHETHER APPELLANT
WAS DENIED THE
II. WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN HE
FAILED
TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S
RULING IN UNITED
STATES v. McOMBER, 1 M.J. 380 (C.M.A. 1976), AND THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
III. WHETHER
APPELLANT HAS BEEN DENIED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS
APPEAL.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0612/AR.
No.
05-0718/AR.
No.
05-0720/AR.
No.
05-0746/AF.
No.
05-0760/AR.
No.
05-0769/AR.
No.
05-0774/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0088/AR.
No.
06-0089/AR.
No.
06-0090/AR.
No.
06-0091/AF.
No.
06-0092/AF.
No.
06-0093/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-8001/MC.
Julius LETT, Petitioner, v.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-028
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 03-0369/AR.
No. 05-0660/MC.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 03-0369/AR.
No. 03-0620/AR.
WHETHER
THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUSPENSION OF REDUCTION IN PAY GRADE FOR SIX MONTHS
WOULD
STILL CONSTITUTE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FIVE YEARS AFTER APPELLANT'S
TRIAL.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 05-0660/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0750/AR.
No.
05-0751/AR.
No.
05-0754/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0086/AR.
No.
06-0087/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0363/NA.
No.
05-0690/AR.
No.
06-0012/AR.
No.
06-0015/AR.
No.
06-0017/AR.
No.
06-5001/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-027
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No.
05-0604/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0080/AR.
No.
06-0081/AR.
No.
06-0082/AF.
No.
06-0083/AF.
No.
06-0084/AF.
No.
06-0085/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0655/NA.
No.
06-0022/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-026
HEARINGS
No.
05-0077/AF.
No.
05-0195/AF.
No.
05-0220/AF.
No.
05-0260/AF.
No.
05-0341/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0078/AR.
No.
06-0079/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-025
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0604/AR.
No.
06-0075/AF.
No.
06-0076/AF.
No.
06-0077/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0235/NA.
No.
05-0662/NA.
No.
05-0699/AR.
No.
05-0730/AR.
____________
*/
Second petition
filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-024
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0485/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0073/AR.
No.
06-0074/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
02-0623/AR.
No.
03-0595/AR.
No.
04-0264/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-023
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0072/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0195/AF.
No.
05-0771/NA.
No.
06-0002/AR.
No.
06-0003/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-022
HEARINGS
No.
05-0136/AF.
No.
05-0244/MC.
No.
05-0266/MC.
No.
05-0280/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0460/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0070/AR.
No.
06-0071/NA.
No.
06-6001/NA.
That the Clerk’s office and counsel for
both parties herein promptly ensure that the new docket number assigned
to this
case be noted on all pleadings filed to date in this matter; and
That Appellant will file a supplement to
said petition under Rule 21 on or before the 22nd day of
November,
2005.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
04-0799/NA.
No.
05-0047/MC.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
06-021
HEARINGS
No.
04-0578/AR.
No.
05-0255/AF.
No.
05-0288/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
05-0426/AR.
No.
05-0653/AR.
No.
05-0658/AR.
No.
05-0663/AR.
No.
05-0667/CG.
No.
05-0688/MC.
No.
05-0736/AF.
No.
05-0742/CG.
No.
05-0743/AR.
No.
05-0744/AR.
No.
05-0747/AR.
No.
05-0756/AF.
No.
05-0772/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
98-0497/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0266/MC.
No.
05-0485/AF.
No.
05-0505/MC.
No. 05-0506/NA.
No.
05-0773/AR.
____________
*/
Third petition
filed in this case.