UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-138

Friday, March 30, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0400/AR. U.S. v. Michael T. MCNAUGHTON. CCA 20090596.*

No. 12-0414/AR. U.S. v. David G. SPICER, Jr. CCA 20090608.

No. 12-0415/AF. U.S. v. Cameron K. GRAVES. CCA S31954.

No. 12-0416/AR. U.S. v. Khristopher R. WILLIS. CCA 20110217.

No. 12-0417/AF. U.S. v. Eric S. PUTNAM. CCA 37910.

No. 12-0418/AF. U.S. v. Andrew P. HALPIN. CCA S31805.

No. 12-0419/AF. U.S. v. Jackson D. HEARING. CCA S31959.

No. 12-0420/AR. U.S. v. Timothy C. MARTUCCI. CCA 20090572.

No. 12-0421/AR. U.S. v. Joshua P. CARROLL. CCA 20110444.

No. 12-0422/AR. U.S. v. Joshua T. STUTTE. CCA 20100860.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-0526/AF. U.S. v. Kody T. WEEKS. CCA 37535.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-137

Thursday, March 29, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0514/NA. U.S. v. Damien J. AUTRY. CCA 201100105. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and, the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps 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 reflect the finding of Specification 4, Charge II, was guilty, and the findings of Specifications 5, 7, and 8 of Charge II were guilty with exceptions and substitutions.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0514/NA. U.S. v. Damien J. AUTRY. CCA 201100105. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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. 12-0233/MC. U.S. v. John M. SUTTLE. CCA 201100030.

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

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

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0410/MC. U.S. v. Wade L. WALKER. CCA 9501607.

No. 12-0411/AR. U.S. v. Dewey B. MEADOR. CCA 20100130.

No. 12-0412/AR. U.S. v. Anthony R. ELLINGTON. CCA 20100667.

No. 12-0413/AR. U.S. v. David J. WATSON, Jr. CCA 20100930.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0149/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. STADEL. CCA 20090820. Appellee's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including May 11, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0410/MC. U.S. v. Wade L. WALKER. CCA 9501607. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to April 18, 2012.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-136

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

 

RULES CHANGES

 

On further consideration of the Order of the Court of March 15, 2012, regarding amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, it is ordered that the portion of the Order of the Court of March 15, 2012, regarding the amendment of Rule 19(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, is hereby rescinded pending further order of the Court. The portion of the Order regarding Rules 13A and 27(a)(4)remains in effect.

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0362/AR. U.S. v. Thomas G. GENTRY. CCA 20080985. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNDER ARTICLE 134.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0537/MC. U.S. v. Christopher M. HARRIS. CCA 201000341. Review granted on the following issue:

 

DOES AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATE 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. 11-0638/AR. U.S. v. Edgar E. MARTINEZ. CCA 20090582. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE III 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. 11-0639/AR. U.S. v. Tanner P. FORRY. CCA 20080334. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATIONS 5 AND 7 OF ADDITIONAL CHARGE II FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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. 12-0349/AF. U.S. v. Ivy M. MILLARD. CCA 37649.

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0409/AR. U.S. v. Jorge GARCIACORTES. CCA 20110555.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0206/AR. U.S. v. Tommie L. OLDS. CCA 20091044. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to May 2, 2012.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-135

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0640/AR. U.S. v. Robert L. MCCULLOUGH. CCA 20090206. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNDER ARTICLE 134 BECAUSE THE SPECIFICATION FAILS TO ALLEGE ANY OF THE THREE TERMINAL CLAUSES OF ARTICLE 134.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0300/AR. U.S. v. Payson C. AVERILL. CCA 20090491. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE II IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. SECTION 934, IS NEITHER EXPRESSLY ALLEGED NOR "NECESSARILY IMPLIED."

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0336/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. COVINGTON. CCA 20090877. 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, 2, AND 3 OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE SPECIFICATIONS FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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

No. 11-0564/MC. U.S. v. Bradley A. MORALES. CCA 201000057.

No. 11-0629/AR. U.S. v. Jesse V. SPIELMAN. CCA 20070883.

No. 12-0281/AR. U.S. v. Jason A. KELLER. CCA 20100600.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0516/AR. U.S. v. Maurice K. ROBINS. CCA 20090996.*

No. 11-0563/MC. U.S. v. Anthony J. SANDERS. CCA 201000522.*

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 12-0287/NA. U.S. v. Michael D. SILVERSTEIN. CCA 201100407. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's order issued on March 13, 2012, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0206/AR. U.S. v. Tommie L. OLDS. CCA 20091044. On consideration of the motions filed by United States Army Appellate Defense Division to withdraw as appellate defense counsel and to provide additional information concerning the motion to withdraw, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 12-0365/AR. U.S. v. Joshua J. WRIGHT. CCA 20101001. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including April 9, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-6002/AF. U.S. v. Darren N. HATHORNE. CCA 2011-02. On consideration of Appellant's motion to exclude Appendices A, B, C and D from Appellee's answer, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied as to Appendix A, but is granted as to Appendices B, C, and D without prejudice to Appellee's filing a motion to supplement the record under Rule 30A, Rules of Practice and Procedure.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-0440/MC. U.S. v. Nicholas S. STEWART. CCA 201000021.

________________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-134

Monday, March 26, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-6006/AR. U.S. v. Justin D. ROBISON. CCA 20110758.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0494/AF. U.S. v. Michael T. NERAD. CCA 36994.*

No. 12-0408/MC. U.S. v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS III. CCA 200800393.

 

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 12-8019/MC. Edwin A. EHLERS, II, Appellant v. United States, Appellee. CCA 200800190. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's order issued on February 23, 2012, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0677/AR. U.S. v. Chauncey J.R. THORNE. CCA 20080565. Appellant's motion for leave to file out of time and motion for enlargement of time to file the brief in support are denied.

 

No. 12-0408/MC. U.S. v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS III. CCA 200800393. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to April 16, 2012.

________________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-133

Friday, March 23, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0313/MC. U.S. v. Andrew D. TEARMAN. CCA 201100195. Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. THE LOWER COURT HELD THAT THE ADMISSION, OVER APPELLANT'S OBJECTION, OF TWO PIECES OF TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY FOUND WITHIN THE DD FORM 2624 WAS HARMLESS ERROR BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT IT MISAPPLIED THE SWEENEY FACTORS AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE BLAZIER II FACTORS IN ASSESSING PREJUDICE. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO APPELLANT'S CONVICTION?

 

II. THE LOWER COURT HELD THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING, OVER APPELLANT'S OBJECTION, THE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY DOCUMENTS AND INTERNAL REVIEW WORKSHEETS BECAUSE THEY WERE NON-TESTIMONIAL. ARE THESE NON-MACHINE GENERATED DOCUMENTS AND WORKSHEETS TESTIMONIAL?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0276/MC. U.S. v. Jose A. JIMENEZ. CCA 201100187.

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

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

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

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

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0652/AF. U.S. v. Michelle E. COURTNEY. CCA 37694.*

No. 12-0402/AR. U.S. v. Cenquita N. FAGAN. CCA 20110493.

No. 12-0403/AR. U.S. v. Christopher M. DYER. CCA 20100738.

No. 12-0404/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan E. MUELLER. CCA 37903.

No. 12-0405/AF. U.S. v. Justin K. ARAKI. CCA 38009.

No. 12-0406/AF. U.S. v. Christopher R. DANIELS. CCA S31957.

No. 12-0407/AF. U.S. v. Kevin W. WILEY. CCA 37953.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0626/AR. U.S. v. Kirby B. MOSES. CCA 20090247. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to April 11, 2012.

 

No. 12-0008/AR. U.S. v. Alaa M. ALI. CCA 20080559. On consideration of the motions filed by Professor Eric Schnapper, the University of Washington School of Law, to appear pro hac vice, to file a brief of Amicus Curiae out of time, to allow appearance of law student, to allow Eric Schnapper to appear as Amicus Curiae, and to present oral argument, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted, and that Amicus Curiae will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-132

Thursday, March 22, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0566/MC. U.S. v. Alan D. SOBENES. CCA 201000381. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the convening authority approved the sentence, which included a dishonorable discharge, and then stated "the adjudged sentence is approved and will be executed." Under Article 71(c)(1), UCMJ, a punitive discharge cannot be ordered executed until, after the completion of direct appellate review, there is a final judgment as to the legality of the proceedings. Thus, to the extent that the convening authority's action purported to execute the dishonorable discharge, it was a nullity. To avoid any error in this regard, we again suggest that the model "Forms for Action" in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States app. 16 at A16-1 A16-6 (2008 ed.) be revised. See United States v. Karras, 70 M.J. 25 (C.A.A.F. 2011); United States v. Politte, 63 M.J. 24, 26 n.11 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and that, subject to the above, the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0566/MC. U.S. v. Alan D. SOBENES. CCA 201000381. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 12-0285/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin M. ACKMAN. CCA 20090615. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE II 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.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0626/AR. U.S. v. Kirby B. MOSES. CCA 20090247.*

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-5003/AF. U.S. v. Brandon T. ROSE. CCA 36508.

No. 12-0008/AR. U.S. v. Alaa M. ALI. CCA 20080559.

No. 12-0030/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. BEHENNA. CCA 20090234.

No. 12-0202/NA. U.S. v. Michael IGNACIO. CCA 201100062.

No. 12-6002/AF. U.S. v. Darren N. HATHORNE. CCA 2011-02.

 

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).

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-131

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0400/MC. U.S. v. Bryan M. LAMPE. CCA 201100520.

No. 12-0401/MC. U.S. v. Beau J. PARRA. CCA 201100558.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8020/NA. U.S. v. Calvin A. PRINCE, II. CCA 201100161. 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.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-130

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0338/AF. U.S. v. Michael J. SALINAS. CCA S31983. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby 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.]

 

* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that the plea and finding to Charge IV (Art. 128) were guilty, vice not guilty.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0338/AF. U.S. v. Michael J. SALINAS. CCA S31983. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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

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

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

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. 12-0335/AR. U.S. v. Daniel A. HEIM. CCA 20110646.

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0397/NA. U.S. v. Bryan M. MARTIN. CCA 201100457.

No. 12-0398/AR. U.S. v. Ryan A. BOWERSOX. CCA 20100580.

No. 12-0399/AR. U.S. v. Carina L. POE. CCA 20110523.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-0399/NA. U.S. v. Willie A. BRADLEY. CCA 200501089.

No. 11-0403/AF. U.S. v. Brent A. CAMPBELL. CCA 37460.

No. 11-0413/NA. U.S. v. Anthony P. BALLAN. CCA 201000242.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-129

Monday, March 19, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-6005/AF. U.S. v. Robert C. BRISSETTE. CCA 2011-07. On consideration of the certificate 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 (2006), and Appellee's motion to dismiss, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed, and the motion to dismiss is denied.*

 

* BAKER, Chief Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part):

 

A summary affirmance is consistent with the majority's position in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011), and in light of Fosler, correctly resulted in the granting of Appellee's petition for extraordinary relief on January 3, 2012. However, because I adhere to my position in Fosler, I concur in denying the motion to dismiss, but dissent with regard to the Fosler issues for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler. 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

No. 12-6004/AR. U.S. v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914. On consideration of the certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 862 (2006), and oral argument, we note that because the Army Court of Criminal Appeals has returned the underlying matter to the military judge for clarification, no ripe interlocutory issue exists for this Court to decide. Given the procedural posture of this case, any decision we render on the certified issues would be premature. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0394/AR. U.S. v. Tyler S. FORD. CCA 20110338.

No. 12-0395/AR. U.S. v. Robert W. MEDEIROS. CCA 20081092.

No. 12-0396/MC. U.S. v. Jason A. LUNSFORD, Jr. CCA 20110511.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0194/AR. U.S. v. Evan VELA. CCA 20080133. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to March 21, 2012.

 

No. 12-0395/AR. U.S. v. Robert W. MEDEIROS. CCA 20081092. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 30, 2012.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-128

Friday, March 16, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0244/AR. U.S. v. Joshua D. PROCTOR. CCA 20100289.

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.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0392/AR. U.S. v. Bryon L. SULLIVAN. CCA 20110625.

No. 12-0393/AR. U.S. v. Michael J. YONG. CCA 20110094.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0030/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. BEHENNA. CCA 20090234. On consideration of the motions filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief, to participate in oral argument, and to correct errata, it is ordered that said motions to correct errata and for leave to file Amicus Curiae brief are hereby granted, and the motion to participate in oral argument is hereby denied.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-127

Thursday, March 15, 2012

 

RULES CHANGES

 

Upon careful consideration of certain proposed changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which were presented to and reviewed by the Rules Advisory Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and thereafter published in the Federal Register for comment, it is ordered that effective April 1, 2012, Rule 13A and Rule 19(b) are hereby amended as provided in the attachment to this Order (changes appear in bold typeface), and Rule 27(a)(4) is hereby rescinded.

 

Rule 13A:

 

Add new subparagraph (h) as follows:

 

(h) Time for Filing. An amicus brief submitted under this Rule is not subject to the time limitation in Rule 26(b), but such brief shall be filed no less than 14 days before the scheduled date for oral argument. Both the appellant and the appellee may file a reply to such brief within 7 days of the filing thereof, subject to the limitations specified in Rule 24(b) and (c).

 

Rule 19(b):

 

(b) Certificate for review/brief/answer/reply

 

(1) Article 62, UCMJ, cases. In cases involving a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ, 10 USC 862, a certificate for review, together with a supporting brief in accordance with Rule 24 on behalf of the appellant, shall be filed with the Court by the Judge Advocate General no later than 60 days after the date of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. [Remainder of paragraph is unchanged.]

 

(2) Extraordinary Relief Cases. In cases involving a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief filed therein, a certificate for review, together with a supporting brief in accordance with Rule 24 on behalf of the appellant, shall be filed with the Court by the Judge Advocate General no later than 60 days after the date of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. [Remainder of paragraph is unchanged.]

 

(3) Other Cases. In all other cases involving a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals, a certificate for review filed by the Judge Advocate General shall be filed either (a) no later than 60 days after the date of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, or (b) no later than 30 days after a petition for grant of review is granted. [Remainder of paragraph is unchanged.]

 

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0293/NA. U.S. v. Adam G. HALL. CCA 201000671. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps 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 include the sentencing date.

 

No. 12-0301/CG. U.S. v. Patrick L. MURPHY. CCA 0274. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the convening authority approved the sentence, which included a dishonorable discharge, and then stated "the adjudged sentence is approved and will be executed." Under Article 71(c)(1), UCMJ, a punitive discharge cannot be ordered executed until, after the completion of direct appellate review, there is a final judgment as to the legality of the proceedings. Thus, to the extent that the convening authority's action purported to execute the dishonorable discharge, it was a nullity. To avoid any error in this regard, we again suggest that the model "Forms for Action" in Manual for Courts-Martial, United States app. 16 at A16-1 - A16-6 (2008) ed.) be revised. See United States v. Politte, 63 M.J. 24, 26 n.11 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and that subject to the above, the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0293/NA. U.S. v. Adam G. HALL. CCA 201000671. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 12-0301/CG. U.S. v. Patrick L. MURPHY. CCA 0274. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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. 12-0319/AR. U.S. v. Jamie S. FRISBY. CCA 20110021.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0387/AF. U.S. v. Kevin W. BOLIVAR. CCA S31961.

No. 12-0388/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas G. ANDERSON. CCA S31945.

No. 12-0389/AF. U.S. v. Ivan FLORES. CCA 37991.

No. 12-0390/AF. U.S. v. Bryan P. WILLIAMS. CCA S31975.

No. 12-0391/AF. U.S. v. D'Jon A. CAMELL. CCA 37955.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0030/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. BEHENNA. CCA 20090234. On consideration of the motion filed by the National Institute of Military Justice for leave to file as Amicus Curiae, and for leave to permit law student participation, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-126

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0236/NA. U.S. v. Tyler M. ROSSMAN. CCA 201100186. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps 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 reflect that the adjudged sentence included a bad-conduct discharge.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0236/NA. U.S. v. Tyler M. ROSSMAN. CCA 201100186. [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0385/AR. U.S. v. Robert T. TOUSSANT. CCA 20090839.

No. 12-0386/AR. U.S. v. John E. GRUSZIE. CCA 20110177.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0495/AR. U.S. v. Brandon K. PRICE. CCA 20100382. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and Appellant's supplement to the petition, it is ordered that Appellee shall file an answer to the supplement within 20 days of the date of this order. Appellant may file a reply with 5 days of the answer.

 

No. 11-0559/NA. U.S. v. Jordan J. ESCOCHEA-SANCHEZ. CCA 201000093. On consideration of Appellant's motion for leave to file a second petition for reconsideration out of time and Appellant's second petition for reconsideration, it is ordered that said motion is

hereby denied and said petition is denied as moot.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-125

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0287/NA. U.S. v. Michael D. SILVERSTEIN. CCA 201100407.

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

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

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0475/AR. U.S. v. Robert L. CONRADY. CCA 20080534.*

No. 12-0379/MC. U.S. v. Michael A. MANGLICMOT. CCA 201100435.

No. 12-0380/MC. U.S. v. Scott D. BAUER, Jr. CCA 201100515.

No. 12-0381/MC. U.S. v. Brian D. ALEXANDER. CCA 201100421.

No. 12-0382/MC. U.S. v. Benjamin T. MCDANIEL. CCA 201100573.

No. 12-0383/AR. U.S. v. Edwin COLLAZO-HERNANDEZ. CCA 20110186.

No. 12-0384/MC. U.S. v. Jonathan R. CARRILLO. CCA 201100232.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-5003/AF. U.S. v. Brandon T. ROSE. CCA 36508. On consideration of the motions filed by Brooks Holland, Assistant Professor of Law, Gonzaga University School of Law, to permit law students to appear on behalf of Amicus Curiae, to appear as Amicus Curiae and file untimely brief, and to submit oral argument, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted, and the Amicus Curiae will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.

 

No. 12-0377/AR. U.S. v. Randy A. GIDDENS. CCA 20090598. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to April 2, 2012.

_______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-124

Monday, March 12, 2012

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 12-0053/AR. U.S. v. Richard L. EASTON. CCA 20080640.

No. 12-6004/AR. U.S. v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914.

No. 12-0099/AR. U.S. v. Matthew J. MCCLAIN. CCA 20090446.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0303/MC. U.S. v. Thomas R. LIRLEY. CCA 201000502. Review granted on the following issue:

 

A SPECIFICATION STATES AN OFFENSE ONLY IF IT ALLEGES EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION, EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE. THE "TERMINAL ELEMENT" OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, IS AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE THAT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE CHARGE DO NOT ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ. DO THE SPECIFICATIONS FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 11-0610/AR. U.S. v. Marcus MELCHOR. CCA 20100272. 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. 12-0234/AF. U.S. v. Jason W. TERWILLIGER. CCA S31840. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO CHARGE II AND ITS SPECIFICATION WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II FAILED TO ALLEGE ANY ONE OF THE THREE DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134 AND THEREBY FAILED TO MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE STANDARD SET FORTH IN SCHMUCK v. UNITED STATES, HAMLING v. UNITED STATES, AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0280/AR. U.S. v. Brandon A. LOPEZ. CCA 20090564. Review granted on the following issue raised by appellate defense counsel:

 

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?

 

And the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY PURPORTING TO AFFIRM A "REDUCTION TO THE GRADE OF PRIVATE E1" WHERE NO SUCH PUNISHMENT WAS ADJUDGED AT THE COURT-MARTIAL. SEE ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

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

 

No. 12-0376/MC. U.S. v. Chad L. DOVER. CCA 201100312.

No. 12-0377/AR. U.S. v. Randy A. GIDDENS. CCA 20090598.

No. 12-0378/AR. U.S. v. Mark J. BOULGER. CCA 20110367.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-0396/MC. U.S. v. Joshua D. FRY. CCA 201000179.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-123

Friday, March 9, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0227/NA. U.S. v. Ros L. DAVIS. CCA 201000302. Review granted on the following issue:

 

DOES AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATE 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. 12-0304/AR. U.S. v. Jeremiah R. HOPKINS. CCA 20100800. 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 2-12 OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0305/AR. U.S. v. Joshua C. AMBROSE. CCA 20100042. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE 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. 12-0310/AF. U.S. v. David W. SHANTEAU. CCA 37969. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER CHARGE II 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. 12-0311/AF. U.S. v. William R. MULLEN. CCA 37959. 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.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0255/AR. U.S. v. Christopher S. KELCH. CCA 20110463.

No. 12-0268/NA. U.S. v. James A. SCHNELL. CCA 201100204.

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0165/AF. U.S. v. Daniel A. ZARBATANY, Jr. CCA 37448.*

No. 11-0401/AF. U.S. v. David M. ATTARDO. CCA S31853.*

No. 12-0373/AF. U.S. v. Jose S. MONSERRATE. CCA S31649.

No. 12-0374/NA. U.S. v. Donald W. LENARD. CCA 201100242.

No. 12-0375/MC. U.S. v. Michael S. HARIDAT. CCA 201100275.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0371/AR. U.S. v. Charlie W. PRESLEY, Jr. CCA 20090673. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 28, 2012.

 

No. 12-0373/AF. U.S. v. Jose S. MONSERRATE. CCA S31649. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 29, 2012.

 

No. 12-6006/AR. U.S. v. Justin D. ROBISON. CCA 20110758. On consideration of the petition for grant of review filed by counsel for the Appellant on February 29, 2012, under Rule 19(a)(5)(A), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and docketed under Docket Number 12-0359/AR, it appears that said petition is in fact a petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 862. Accordingly, it is ordered that Docket Number 12-6006/AR be forthwith assigned to this case, that Docket Number 12-0359/AR be removed from this case and not be assigned to any case in the future, and 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.

_____________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-122

Thursday, March 8, 2012

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0383/NA. U.S. v. Gary W. LUMPKINS, Jr. CCA 201000554. Review granted on the following issue:

 

DOES AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATE 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. 12-0148/AR. U.S. v. James O. MORRIS. CCA 20081169. Review granted on the following issue raised by appellate defense counsel:

 

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?

 

And the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT AS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF INDECENT ASSAULT UNDER ARTICLE 134 MAY BE AFFIRMED WHERE THE ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATION WAS DEFECTIVE UNDER UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0245/AR. U.S. v. Thomas A. SCOTT. CCA 20091087. 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 2 OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0252/AR. U.S. v. Jesse J. BRAY. CCA 20100029. Review granted on the following issue:

 

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

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 12-0259/AR. U.S. v. Justin C. WIESENHOFER. CCA 20100041. Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATIONS 3 THROUGH 5 OF CHARGE I FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0389/AR. U.S. v. Kenneth L. GOODMAN. CCA 20090083.*

No. 12-0371/AR. U.S. v. Charlie W. PRESLEY, Jr. CCA 20090673.

No. 12-0372/AR. U.S. v. Yusuf A. MUHAMMAD. CCA 20110308.

___________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-121

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0368/AR. U.S. v. Travis M. KRUMM. CCA 20110336.

No. 12-0369/AR. U.S. v. Timothy C. BRAGG. CCA 20110085.

No. 12-0370/AR. U.S. v. Russell O. DEGEORGE. CCA 20110355.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-120

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

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. 12-0297/AR. U.S. v. Joshua I. TOTH. CCA 20100839.

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

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0044/AF. U.S. v. Varun K. NARULA. CCA 37658.*

No. 12-0365/AR. U.S. v. Joshua J. WRIGHT. CCA 20101001.

No. 12-0366/AR. U.S. v. Ryan T. RIHA. CCA 20110615.

No. 12-0367/AR. U.S. v. Alexander GARCIA. CCA 20110392.

 

* Second petition filed in this case.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-119

Monday, March 5, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0443/AR. U.S. v. Aaron P. HUDSON. CCA 20090506.*

No. 12-0363/AR. U.S. v. Bryan K. JONES. CCA 20090983.

No. 12-0364/AR. U.S. v. James N. WRIGHT, III. CCA 20110434.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8014/MC. Shawn C. BLAIR, v. William Riggs, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, in his official capacity as Military Judge, and The United States, Appellees. CCA 201200018. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0443/AR. U.S. v. Aaron P. HUDSON. CCA 20090506. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 26, 2012.

 

No. 11-0476/AR. U.S. v. Berttran L. TILLER. CCA 20080438. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including March 13, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0331/AR. U.S. v. Jamil V. WILLIAMS. CCA 20090619. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including March 20, 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. 12-118

Friday, March 2, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0197/AR. U.S. v. Anthony J. CRUSE. CCA 20080148.

No. 12-0288/AF. U.S. v. Yovette A. DESOUZA. CCA 37933.

No. 12-0289/AF. U.S. v. James D. FRIIS. CCA S31868.

No. 12-0290/AF. U.S. v. Colin J. FAGAN. CCA 37990.

No. 12-0291/AF. U.S. v. Samantha R. LASHLEY. CCA 37859.

No. 12-0292/AF. U.S. v. Jeffery S. WESTENHAVER. CCA S31952.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 11-0511/AR. U.S. v. Aaron P. STONE. CCA 20090332.*

No. 12-0361/AR. U.S. v. Freddie W. PRICE, Jr. CCA 20110060.

No. 12-0362/AR. U.S. v. Stephen A. WRIGHT. CCA 20110199.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 11-5003/NA. U.S. v. Thomas J. HAYES. CCA 201000366.

______________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-117

Thursday, March 1, 2012

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0223/NA. U.S. v. Aaron L. BOWLES. CCA 201100010.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0360/MC. U.S. v. Palanka R. ROUMER. CCA 201100081.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0053/AR. U.S. v. Richard L. EASTON. CCA 20080640.

No. 12-0099/AR. U.S. v. Matthew J. MCCLAIN. CCA 20090446.

No. 12-6004/AR. U.S. v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914.

 

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 Walter T. Cox III to perform judicial duties in the above-referenced cases, and that Senior Judge Cox 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).

 


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