UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-116

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0515/MC. U.S. v. Benny NORWOOD, JR. CCA 201000495. Review granted on the following issues:

 

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011), THE SPECIFICATIONS ALLEGING ATTEMPTED ADULTERY AND CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE STATE OFFENSES.

 

WHETHER, IN ORDER TO STATE AN OFFENSE OF ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY UNDER ARTICLES 80 AND 81, THE SPECIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EACH ELEMENT OF THE PREDICATE OFFENSE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.*

 

* Pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 412(c)(2), the Clerk is directed to seal pages 67 to 85 of the record of trial and Appellate Exhibits VIII and IX.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0357/MC. U.S. v. Howard A. WOODALL. CCA 201100554.

No. 12-0358/AR. U.S. v. David K. ADAMS. CCA 20100658.

No. 12-0359/AR. U.S. v. Justin D. ROBISON. CCA 20110758.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-115

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0277/AF. U.S. v. Donald J. VENTURINO. CCA 37929.

No. 12-0279/AR. U.S. v. Paul A. LAMORA. CCA 20110131.

No. 12-0284/AR. U.S. v. William K. SPEARS. CCA 20110462.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-114

Monday, February 27, 2012

 

APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0269/AR. U.S. v. William P. CALDWELL. CCA 20110538. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.* [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

* It is directed that the date of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals decision be corrected to 5 January 2012.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0453/AR. U.S. v. Aaron M. MITCHELL. CCA 20100713. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0269/AR. U.S. v. William P. CALDWELL. CCA 20110538. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0265/AR. U.S. v. Joshua K. WILL. CCA 20100273.

No. 12-0266/AR. U.S. v. Ryan M. NASMYTH. CCA 20110188.

No. 12-0267/AR. U.S. v. Derrick A. JOHNS. CCA 20110374.

No. 12-0270/AR. U.S. v. David L. EASTIN. CCA 20100581.

No. 12-0271/AF. U.S. v. Craig M. SANDERS. CCA S31941.

No. 12-0273/AF. U.S. v. Brandon R. BOOTHE. CCA S31943.

No. 12-0274/AF. U.S. v. Abel T. ORONA. CCA 37815.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0422/AR. U.S. v. Byron D. TYSON. CCA 20090072.**

No. 11-0565/NA. U.S. v. Jack C. RUSCITTO. CCA 201100023.**

No. 11-0611/AR. U.S. v. Luis F. DIETZ. CCA 20081031.**

No. 11-0664/NA. U.S. v. Derek L. ALLEN. CCA 201100040.**

No. 12-0354/NA. U.S. v. Markalle D. REDD. CCA 201000682.

No. 12-0355/AR. U.S. v. Daniel F. WILLIAMS. CCA 20110311.

No. 12-0356/AR. U.S. v. Russell J. BRAY. CCA 20110419.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8018/NA. Tarrell D. JILES, Appellant v. Commanding Officer H&S Battilion, MCB, Quantico, VA, LTCOL Michael F. CARDOZA, In his official capacity as Art. 32, UCMJ, Inv. Officer, and United States, Appellees. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to Appellant's right to raise the issues asserted during the course of normal appellate review.

______________________________

 

** Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-113

Friday, February 24, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0351/AF. U.S. v. Denetra M. WARE. CCA 37939.

No. 12-0352/NA. U.S. v. Christopher W. SOKOLIS. CCA 201100415.

No. 12-0353/MC. U.S. v. Lazzaric T. CALDWELL. CCA 201000557.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-112

Thursday, February 23, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0420/AR. U.S. v. Cody T. SMITH. CCA 20100646. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0427/AR. U.S. v. Nicholas A. PATLA. CCA 20100809. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0599/AR. U.S. v. Michael D. DARROW. CCA 20100816. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM SPECIFICATION 1 OF THE CHARGE CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0601/AR. U.S. v. Robert A. MOORE. CCA 20100662. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE VI FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0446/MC. U.S. v. Justin GEYER. CCA 201000398.*

No. 12-0345/AR. U.S. v. Kyle B. HARRINGTON. CCA 20110169.

No. 12-0346/AF. U.S. v. Matthew A. DAVENPORT. CCA S31960.

No. 12-0347/AF. U.S. v. Matthew S. LEAHEY. CCA S31950.

No. 12-0348/AF. U.S. v. Nathan G. MILAM. CCA S31953.

No. 12-0349/AF. U.S. v. Ivy M. MILLARD. CCA 37649.

No. 12-0350/AF. U.S. v. Michael F. REYES. CCA S31932.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8019/NA. Tarrell D. JILES, Appellant v. Commanding Officer H&S Battalion, MCB, Quantico, VA, LTCOL Michael F. CARDOZA, In his official capacity as Art. 32, UCMJ, Inv. Officer, and United States, Appellees. CCA 200800190. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8019/NA. U.S. v. Edwin A. EHLERS II. CCA 200800190. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) by mail on February 3, 2012, and placed on the docket this 23rd day of February, 2012. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0099/AR. U.S. v. Matthew J. MCCLAIN. CCA 20090446. On consideration of Appellee's motion to request expedited oral argument, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted, and that the above-entitled action be called for hearing on the 12th day of March, 2012.

 

No. 12-6004/AR. U.S. v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914. Appellee's motion to reschedule oral argument is denied.

 

_______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-111

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0419/AR. U.S. v. Bradley L. GUMP. CCA 20100546. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE V CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0454/AR. U.S. v. Oren A. REECE. CCA 20100448. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0554/AR. U.S. v. Terry D. RORRO. CCA 20100750. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATIONS 2, 3, 5, AND 6 OF CHARGE V FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0661/AR. U.S. v. Joshua J. CHASTAIN. CCA 20100994. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE V CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0034/AR. U.S. v. Joel L. KAIN, II. CCA 20100490. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0222/AR. U.S. v. Terrance L. ABERNATHY. CCA 20110229. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATIONS 2 AND 3 OF CHARGE III FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0250/AF. U.S. v. Marcus J. BENNETT. CCA S31802.

No. 12-0256/AR. U.S. v. Kevin L. RITCHSON. CCA 20110572.

No. 12-0257/AR. U.S. v. Patrick B. HART. CCA 20110215.

No. 12-0258/AR. U.S. v. Diener VASCONCELOS. CCA 20110303.

No. 12-0261/AF. U.S. v. Christopher P. GOMEZ. CCA S31937.

No. 12-0262/AR. U.S. v. Adam J. DEMANCHE II. CCA 20110328.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0614/NA. U.S. v. Abayomi O. KALEJAIYE. CCA 201100007.*

No. 12-0341/MC. U.S. v. Jonathan EGNASH. CCA 201100171.

No. 12-0342/AR. U.S. v. Shanadra N. WILSON. CCA 20110166.

No. 12-0343/AR. U.S. v. Kevin C. HAIL. CCA 20110054.

No. 12-0344/NA. U.S. v. Calvin A. PRINCE II. CCA 201100161.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8011/AR. U.S. v. Charles A. GRANER, Jr. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said petition is denied.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-0231/AR. U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER, Jr. CCA 9601044.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-110

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0149/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. STADEL. CCA 20090820. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL THAT IT COULD CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF CONSENT IN DECIDING WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT PROVED THAT THE ACT WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY FORCE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0339/AR. U.S. v. Maurice D. FLETCHER. CCA 20110168.

No. 12-0340/AR. U.S. v. Renaldo R. FEBRES. CCA 20100436.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0206/AR. U.S. v. Tommie L. OLDS. CCA 20091044. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the pleadings filed in this case, it is ordered that Appellee file a substantive answer on the following issues raised by Appellant:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN SHE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ASSAULT CONSUMMATED BY A BATTERY.

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN SHE EXCLUDED EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS'S PRIOR SHOPLIFTING CONVICTION.

 

and on the following specified issue:

 

WHETHER IT WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL NOT TO RAISE THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. BONNER, 70 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The answer of Appellee to the above issues shall be filed on or before March 13, 2012. Appellant shall file a reply within 20 days of the filing of Appellee's answer.

 

No. 12-8017/AR. Ronald GRAY, Appellant v. Eric BELCHER, Colonel, U.S. Army, Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. CCA 20110093. On consideration of the motion filed by Billy H. Nolas, Esq., Shawn Nolan, Esq., and Timothy Patrick Kane, Esq., for leave of Court to appear pro hac vice, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

 

No. 12-8017/AR. Ronald GRAY, Appellant v. Eric BELCHER, Colonel, U.S. Army, Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. CCA 20110093. Appellee's motion to extend time to file an answer to the writ-appeal petition is granted to March 12, 2012.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-109

Friday, February 17, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0219/AR. U.S. v. Daniel MORENO. CCA 20100120.

No. 12-0253/AF. U.S. v. Jordan R. FLYNN. CCA 37992.

No. 12-0254/AF. U.S. v. Richard A. WEBB. CCA 37935.

No. 12-6003/AR. U.S. v. Kevin J. KITMANYEN. CCA 20110609.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0655/AF. U.S. v. Robert A. AURAND. CCA S31863.*

No. 12-0337/AF. U.S. v. Casey M. CULPEPPER. CCA S31981.

No. 12-0338/AF. U.S. v. Michael J. SALINAS. CCA S31983.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0331/AR. U.S. v. Jamil V. WILLIAMS. CCA 20090619. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.

 

No. 12-8014/MC. Shawn C. BLAIR, Appellant v. William Riggs, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, in his official capacity as Military Judge, and The United States, Appellees. CCA 201200018. Appellant's motion to attach documents is granted, and Appellee's motion to attach documents is granted.

________________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-108

Thursday, February 16, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0194/AR. U.S. v. Evan VELA. CCA 20080133. Review granted on the following issues:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENSE'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR DISQUALIFY UNDER UNITED STATES v. KASTIGAR.

 

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY TO CHARGE III.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0566/MC. U.S. v. Alan D. SOBENES. CCA 201000381.*

No. 11-0610/AR. U.S. v. Marcus MELCHOR. CCA 20100272.

No. 12-0331/AR. U.S. v. Jamil V. WILLIAMS. CCA 20090619.*

No. 12-0332/AF. U.S. v. Kyle L. SUMMERELL. CCA S31955.

No. 12-0333/AF. U.S. v. Christopher F. SPOSETO. CCA S31852.

No. 12-0334/AF. U.S. v. Johnathon W. BURLEY. CCA S31866.

No. 12-0335/AR. U.S. v. Daniel A. HEIM. CCA 20110646.

No. 12-0336/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. COVINGTON. CCA 20090877.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-107

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0172/NA. U.S. v. Jeremy L. RAUSCHER. CCA 201000684. Review granted on the following issue:

 

APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH, INTER ALIA, ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ. BUT THE SPECIFICATION FAILED TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT. THE MEMBERS FOUND APPELLANT NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE, BUT GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UNDER ARTICLE 128, UCMJ, AS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT IS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF AN ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0224/AF. U.S. v. Jamie D. MARTINEZ. CCA S31779. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT MISAPPLIED UNITED STATES v. FOSLER AND UNITED STATES v. WATKINS IN FINDING THAT, DESPITE FAILING TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATION HERE STATES AN OFFENSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0251/AF. U.S. v. Ermen-Rene BARNETT. CCA 37578. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE INFORMED THE MEMBERS OF APPELLANT'S ILLEGAL PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT CREDIT AND THEN FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS BASED ON A SUBMITTED QUESTION THAT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO NULLIFY SOME OR ALL OF THAT CREDIT BY INCREASING THE SENTENCE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0437/MC. U.S. v. Royan R. ROSCHE. CCA 201000461.*

No. 11-0575/NA. U.S. v. Cory F. OLMOS. CCA 201100133.*

No. 12-0327/MC. U.S. v. Brad H. ALSTON. CCA 201100150.

No. 12-0328/AR. U.S. v. Bret A. GLOWTH. CCA 20090925.

No. 12-0329/MC. U.S. v. Ryan T. SPENCER. CCA 201100136.

No. 12-0330/AR. U.S. v. Marc W. COLLIER. CCA 20100741.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8017/AR. Ronald GRAY, Appellant v. Eric BELCHER, Colonel, U.S. Army, Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. CCA 20110093. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of coram nobis was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-106

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-5005/MC. U.S. v. Jeremy J. NASH. CCA 201000220.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0374/AR. U.S. v. Lelan M. SHANKLES. CCA 20100307. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IV FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0057/AR. U.S. v. Roy E. BUHROW III. CCA 20100911. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS CHARGE III FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0230/AR. U.S. v. Jeffery A. HOBART. CCA 20100119. Review granted on the following issue:

 

DID THE LOWER COURT MISAPPLY UNITED STATES v. FOSLER IN FINDING THAT, DESPITE FAILING TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATIONS WERE NOT SO DEFECTIVE AS TO WARRANT DISMISSAL?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0263/AR. U.S. v. Kevin D. GOODMAN. CCA 20110144. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 2 AND 3 OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0275/AF. U.S. v. Joshua S. FLEURY. CCA S31944. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0278/AR. U.S. v. Richard J. MCINNISH. CCA 20090923. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2 AND 3 OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0248/AF. U.S. v. Eric L. BROWN. CCA 37851.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0638/AR. U.S. v. Edgar E. MARTINEZ. CCA 20090582.*

No. 12-0320/AF. U.S. v. Chadrick L. CAPEL. CCA S31819.

No. 12-0321/AR. U.S. v. Christopher C. CHAMPION. CCA 20100926.

No. 12-0322/AR. U.S. v. Latretta S. CLEMONS. CCA 20110633.

No. 12-0323/AF. U.S. v. David G. CONN. CCA S31949.

No. 12-0324/AF. U.S. v. Danny SANTOS. CCA S31916.

No. 12-0325/AF. U.S. v. Luke R. ALLISON. CCA 37883.

No. 12-0326/AR. U.S. v. Dennis Q. GIEBLER. CCA 20100842.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8016/AR. Edwin M. ACKERMAN, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent. Notice is hereby given that a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 USCS 1651, which this Court construed as petition for extraordinary relief, was filed under Rule 27(a) by mail on August 1, 2011, and placed on docket this 14th day of February, 2012. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8016/AR. Edwin M. ACKERMAN, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0474/AR. U.S. v. Antony P. KNOWLAND. CCA 20071405. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.

 

No. 11-0496/AR. U.S. v. Christopher D. RICE. CCA 20090857. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.

 

No. 12-0264/AR. U.S. v. Robert O. BOZEMAN. CCA 20080711. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including February 27, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0312/AR. U.S. v. Michael P. NETTLES. CCA 20091032. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.

 

No. 12-0317/AF. U.S. v. Ronnie WILSON. CCA 37486. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.

 

No. 12-5001/AF. U.S., Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. Daniel J. DATAVS, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. CCA 37537. Cross-Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 1, 2012.

 

No. 12-6004/AR. U.S. v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914. Appellant's motion to submit redacted joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 12-6004/AR. U.S. v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914. Appellee's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including February 24, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

_____________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-105

Monday, February 13, 2012

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 10-5004/AF. U.S. v. Ryan D. HUMPHRIES. CCA 37632.

No. 12-0090/AF. U.S. v. Joseph A. HAYES. CCA 37588.

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-6005/AF. U.S., Appellant v. Robert C. BRISSETTE, Appellee. CCA 37537. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for 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, and a supporting brief were filed under Rule 22 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE PRE-AMENDED CHARGE AND SPECIFICATION FOR INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, NECESSARILY IMPLIED THE TERMINAL ELEMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFICATION CONSTITUTED A MINOR CHANGE.

 

II. WHETHER APPELLEE PROPERLY CHALLENGED THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CHARGE AND SPECIFICATION FOR INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, WHEN HE DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE SPECIFICATION FOR FAILING TO STATE AN OFFENSE AT TRIAL AND PRESERVE A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF THE SPECIFICATION PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

Appellee will file an answer under Rule 22(b)(1) on or before February 23, 2012.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0246/AR. U.S. v. Matthew E. GRIFFIN. CCA 20110376.

No. 12-0247/AR. U.S. v. Nelson PEREZ-ZAMOT. CCA 20110389.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0474/AR. U.S. v. Antony P. KNOWLAND. CCA 20071405.*

No. 11-0496/AR. U.S. v. Christopher D. RICE. CCA 20090857.*

No. 12-0312/AR. U.S. v. Michael P. NETTLES. CCA 20091032.

No. 12-0313/MC. U.S. v. Andrew D. TEARMAN. CCA 201100195.

No. 12-0314/AF. U.S. v. Benjamin J. KNELL. CCA 37832.

No. 12-0315/AF. U.S. v. Joseph W. GRAHAM II. CCA S31907.

No. 12-0316/AF. U.S. v. Warren W. BARNHART IV. CCA S31940.

No. 12-0317/AF. U.S. v. Ronnie WILSON. CCA 37486.

No. 12-0318/AR. U.S. v. Joshua A. WEEKS. CCA 20110381.

No. 12-0319/AR. U.S. v. Jamie S. FRISBY. CCA 20110021.

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-0282/AR. U.S. v. Bobby D. MORRISSETTE. CCA 20090166.

 _____________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-104

Friday, February 10, 2012

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-5001/AF. U.S., Appellant v. Daniel J. DATAVS, Appellee. CCA 37537. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS INCORRECTLY APPLIED THE STANDARD OF LAW UNDER STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) AND HARRINGTON v. RICHTER, 131 S.CT. 770 (2011), WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT SEEKING EXPERT ASSISTANCE DURING TRIAL AFTER THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPERT WITNESS TESTIFIED.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0226/AR. U.S. v. Ryan D. PAGE. CCA 20100083.

No. 12-0241/AF. U.S. v. Kayla L. PIXLER. CCA S31934.

No. 12-0242/AF. U.S. v. Allan T. STEIN, IV. CCA S31924.

No. 12-0243/AF. U.S. v. David W. WENTWORTH. CCA 37852.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0368/AR. U.S. v. Brantley R. TYSON. CCA 20100093.*

No. 12-0309/AR. U.S. v. John P. CRAWFORD. CCA 20110154.

No. 12-0310/AF. U.S. v. David W. SHANTEAU. CCA 37969.

No. 12-0311/AF. U.S. v. William R. MULLEN. CCA 37959.

No. 12-5001/AF. U.S. v. Daniel J. DATAVS. CCA 37537.

_________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-103

Thursday, February 9, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0171/AR. U.S. v. Clayton J. DUNCAN. CCA 20090545. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to change the sentencing date from 22 Jul 09 to 18 Jun 09.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0046/AR. U.S. v. Daniel A. SMELSER. CCA 20110114. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0171/AR. U.S. v. Clayton J. DUNCAN. CCA 20090545. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0181/AF. U.S. v. Douglas L. PAGE, Jr. CCA 37612.

No. 12-0218/AR. U.S. v. Jeffrey C. HAGEMAN. CCA 20110027.

No. 12-0235/AF. U.S. v. Dylan D. DONALDSON. CCA S31929.

No. 12-0237/AR. U.S. v. Scott H. ROSICA. CCA 20110222.

No. 12-0238/AF. U.S. v. Jessica C. COTTRILL. CCA S31931.

No. 12-0239/AF. U.S. v. Lawrence L. HARRIS, II. CCA S31850.

No. 12-0240/AF. U.S. v. Kevin J. CURTIS. CCA 37926.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0306/AF. U.S. v. Jacob L. SCOTT. CCA S31838.

No. 12-0307/AR. U.S. v. Latoya N. FOSTER. CCA 20110505.

No. 12-0308/AR. U.S. v. Justin A. BOYLE. CCA 20090893.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-102

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0434/AR. U.S. v. David J. ISENHOWER. CCA 20100354. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE IV FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0580/AR. U.S. v. Gregory A. ROBINSON. CCA 20100495. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0202/NA. U.S. v. Michael IGNACIO. CCA 201100062. Review granted on the following issue:

 

IN AN ARTICLE 120(h), UCMJ, CASE, THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE OF CONSENT, WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT PROVED GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. PRATHER, AND UNITED STATES v. CHEESEMAN, DOES THE APPLICATION OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 120 WITHOUT THE AFOREMENTIONED INSTRUCTION VIOLATE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0249/AR. U.S. v. Thomas E. DURHAM. CCA 20100488. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 THROUGH 16 OF THE CHARGE CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0105/AF. U.S. v. William T. HALEY. CCA 37565.*

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0181/AF. U.S. v. Douglas L. PAGE, Jr. CCA 37612. Appellant's motion to supplement the record is denied.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-101

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0173/NA. U.S. v. David A. STROUD. CCA 201100145.

No. 12-0227/AR. U.S. v. Jarrod P. ADAMS. CCA 20100696.

No. 12-0231/AR. U.S. v. Brian A. PARDON. CCA 20091122.

No. 12-0232/AR. U.S. v. Dallas M. ERICKSON, Jr. CCA 20100420.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0476/AR. U.S. v. Berttran L. TILLER. CCA 20080438.

No. 12-0301/CG. U.S. v. Patrick L. MURPHY. CCA 0274.

No. 12-0302/AR. U.S. v. David W. HILL. CCA 20100991.

No. 12-0303/AR. U.S. v. Ricci J. ANGEL. CCA 20091152.

No. 12-0304/AR. U.S. v. Jeremiah R. HOPKINS. CCA 20100800.

No. 12-0305/AR. U.S. v. Joshua C. AMBROSE. CCA 20100042.

 

CERTIFICATES OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-6004/AR. U.S., Appellant v. Eric W. COOPER, Appellee. CCA 20110914. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date with the brief of Appellant and Joint Appendix on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE AND THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING MICHIGAN v. MOSLEY, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) AS OPPOSED TO OREGON v. BRADSHAW, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) AND EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED'S STATEMENT WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE.

 

III. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THE ACCUSED'S ENTIRE TYPEWRITTEN STATEMENT BASED ON A SECOND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

 

Appellee's answer under Rule 22(b)(1) will be filed on or before February 17, 2012.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8015/NA. James Melvin LEWIS, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 11, 2011, and placed on the docket this date. On consideration thereof, said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8015/NA. James Melvin LEWIS, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent. See Miscellaneous Docket-Summary Dispositions this date.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0525/AF. U.S. v. Michael P. GRAFMULLER. CCA 37524. On consideration of Appellant's petition for a grant of review, Appellant is granted an enlargement of time up to and including February 29, 2012, to file the supplement.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-100

Monday, February 6, 2012

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0640/AR. U.S. v. Robert L. MCCULLOUGH. CCA 20090206. Appellant's motion for leave to file out of time and to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including February 16, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0182/AR. U.S. v. Nathaniel D. BOZMAN. CCA 20110077. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including February 24, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0300/AR. U.S. v. Payson C. AVERILL. CCA 20090491. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to February 23, 2012.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 10-0178/AF. U.S. v. William J. ST BLANC, Jr. CCA 37206.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-099

Friday, February 3, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0297/AR. U.S. v. Joshua I. TOTH. CCA 20100839.

No. 12-0298/AR. U.S. v. Joshua C. IRBY. CCA 20110411.

No. 12-0299/AF. U.S. v. Nathan AMBRIZ. CCA 37674.

No. 12-0300/AR. U.S. v. Payson C. AVERILL. CCA 20090491.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8012/AF. In Re David J.A. GUTIERREZ. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of an emergency stay, said petition is denied.

 

Misc. No. 12-8013/AF. David J.A. GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. United States and the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, said petition is denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 10-5004/AF. U.S. v. Ryan D. HUMPHRIES. CCA 37632.

No. 11-5005/MC. U.S. v. Jeremy J. NASH. CCA 201000220.

No. 12-0090/AF. U.S. v. Joseph A. HAYES. CCA 37588.

 

In view of the existence of a vacant position on the Court, notice is hereby given that the Chief Judge has called upon Senior Judge Andrew S. Effron to perform judicial duties in the above-referenced cases, and that Senior Judge Effron has consented to perform judicial duties in said cases under Article 142(e)(1)(A)(ii), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 942(e)(1)(A)(ii) (2006).

 

No. 12-0164/AR. U.S. v. Jason S. CHAMBERLAIN. CCA 20100775. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, but only up to and including February 27, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-098

Thursday, February 2, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0180/MC. U.S. v. Ian T. GLOVER. CCA 201100211. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT MISAPPLIED UNITED STATES v. FOSLER AND UNITED STATES v. WATKINS IN FINDING THAT, DESPITE FAILING TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATIONS HERE STATE AN OFFENSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0303/MC. U.S. v. Thomas R. LIRLEY. CCA 201000502.*

No. 11-0514/NA. U.S. v. Damien J. AUTRY. CCA 201100105.*

No. 12-0294/AR. U.S. v. Brandon K. WINGATE. CCA 20100519.

No. 12-0295/AR. U.S. v. David V. PETERSON. CCA 20100851.

No. 12-0296/MC. U.S. v. Brandon L. RHEEL. CCA 201100108.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-097

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0601/AR. U.S. v. Robert A. MOORE. CCA 20100662.*

No. 12-0293/NA. U.S. v. Adam G. HALL. CCA 201000671.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8014/MC. Shawn C. BLAIR, Appellant v. William Riggs, Colonel, United States Marine Corps in his official capacity as Military Judge, and The United States, Appellees. CCA 201200018. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0362/AR. U.S. v. Thomas G. GENTRY. CCA 20080985. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including February 15, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 11-0629/AR. U.S. v. Jesse V. SPIELMAN. CCA 20070883. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including February 15, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

No. 12-0030/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. BEHENNA. CCA 20090234. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, but only up to and including February 28, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0203/AR. U.S. v. Jacob A. RACINE. CCA 20100021. On consideration of the motion filed by Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan F. Potter to withdraw from representation as Appellate Defense Counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellant and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Appellant. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.


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