UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-215

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 13-6004/AF. U.S. v. Samuel A. WICKS. CCA 2013-08. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 862, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED BY FINDING LAW ENFORCEMENT'S REPEATED WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF APPELLANT'S IPHONE DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

 

A joint appendix will be filed on or before August 20, 2013.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0668/AR. U.S. v. Gary L. LINDSEY. CCA 20110299.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 12-0616/AR. U.S. v. Timothy E. BENNITT. CCA 20100172. On consideration of Appellee's petition for reconsideration of the Court's decision, 72 M.J. 266 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0664/MC. U.S. v. Andrew A. CAMPBELL. CCA 201200434. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 19, 2013.

 

No. 13-0666/AR. U.S. v. Charles A. FOXX. CCA 20110272. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 19, 2013.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-214

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0665/AR. U.S. v. James D. BOGUSKE. CCA 20120727.

No. 13-0666/AR. U.S. v. Charles A. FOXX. CCA 20110272.

No. 13-0667/AR. U.S. v. Bradley R. MEHRMAN. CCA 20110800.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-213

Monday, July 29, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0466/NA. U.S. v. William G. MCKINLEY III. CCA 201000120.

No. 13-0495/AR. U.S. v. Brandon M. CLARETT. CCA 20110733.

No. 13-0596/AR. U.S. v. Christopher R. MCCLENDON. CCA 20110468.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0662/AF. U.S. v. Kim L. SHARPE. CCA S32011.

No. 13-0663/AF. U.S. v. Christian L. DAVIS. CCA 38077.

No. 13-0664/MC. U.S. v. Andrew A. CAMPBELL. CCA 201200434.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 13-0096/AR. U.S. v. Maurice S. WILSON. CCA 20110146.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-212

Friday, July 26, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0499/AF. U.S. v. Benny BROCKINGTON III. CCA S32089.

No. 13-0540/AR. U.S. v. Ryan E. BUSSEY. CCA 20110201.

No. 13-0553/AR. U.S. v. John C. KING. CCA 20120136.

No. 13-0556/AR. U.S. v. Kevin J. WEEDEN. CCA 20120623.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0657/AR. U.S. v. Mark P. HUNT. CCA 20110604.

No. 13-0658/AR. U.S. v. Philip B. HUNT. CCA 20121155.

No. 13-0659/AR. U.S. v. Derek J. FORIT. CCA 20110537.

No. 13-0660/AR. U.S. v. Nathan A. SNOWDEN. CCA 20111030.

No. 13-0661/AF. U.S. v. Joshua J. LUI. CCA S32104.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0265/NA. U.S. v. Decker B. JORDAN. CCA 201100621. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file a motion for reconsideration granted to August 19, 2013, 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. 13-211

Thursday, July 25, 2013

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0166/AF. U.S. v. Harley T. LUSK. CCA S31624. On further consideration of the granted issues, 71 M.J. 466 (C.A.A.F. 2012), and in view of United States v. Tearman, 72 M.J. 54 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0547/AR. U.S. v. Vivek BHATTI. CCA 20121044.

No. 13-0577/AR. U.S. v. Steven R. SMALLEY. CCA 20120738.

No. 13-0586/AR. U.S. v. Michael S. KELLAM. CCA 20120518.

No. 13-0587/AR. U.S. v. Dean A. MURRIETTA. CCA 20120493.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0656/NA. U.S. v. Daniel L. MURPHY. CCA 201200486.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 12-0604/NA. U.S. v. Richard R. MOTT. CCA 200900115.

No. 12-5003/MC. U.S. v. Leslie D. PORTER. CCA 201100188.

No. 13-5001/AR. U.S. v. Nicholas R. SCHELL. CCA 20110264.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-210

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0474/AR. U.S. v. Anthony P. KNOWLAND. CCA 20071405. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013) and United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and

the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

 

No. 11-0558/AR. U.S. v. Alvaro GARCIA, Jr. CCA 20080839. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE CHARGE SHEET AND GOVERNMENT CASE-IN-CHIEF REASONABLY PLACED APPELLANT ON NOTICE OF THE TERMINAL ELEMENT WHERE THE ONLY MENTION OF THE TERMINAL ELEMENT WAS DURING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FINDINGS INSTRUCTIONS.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed. The findings of guilty to Charge II and Specifications 2 and 3 thereunder and the sentence are set aside. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing on the affected charge and specifications is authorized.

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I would affirm based on the analysis of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and based on my dissenting opinions in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (Baker, J., dissenting, and United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting).

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0424/AF. U.S. v. Brian W. GROCKI. CCA 37982.

No. 13-0584/AR. U.S. v. Clyde W. ANTHONY. CCA 20120955.

No. 13-0585/AR. U.S. v. Steven J. MCDERMOTT. CCA 20120671.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0655/AR. U.S. v. Luis A. ORTIZ. CCA 20110335.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0605/MC. U.S. v. Hector Y. APARCIO. CCA 201200408. On consideration of Appellant's motion to correct errata, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted. Appellee will file an answer to the corrected supplement to the petition for grant of review on or before August 12, 2013.

 

No. 13-0609/AR. U.S. v. Gregory R. MIEDEMA. CCA 20110496. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including August 1, 2013, 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. 13-209

Monday, July 22, 2013

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0229/AR. U.S. v. Rodger S. DANES. CCA 20091072. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 91 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013) and United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Charge III, Specifications 2, 4, and 6, and the sentence.* The findings of guilty to Specifications 2, 4, and 6 of Charge III are set aside. The remaining findings are affirmed. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals. That court may either dismiss Specifications 2, 4, and 6 of Charge III and reassess the sentence based on the affirmed findings, or it may order a rehearing on the affected charge and the sentence.**

 

 *  BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

Although I agree with the majority's analysis on the Order's footnote, I would affirm based on my dissenting opinions in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (Baker, J., dissenting), and United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting).

_________________________________

 

**  We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that Appellant was on notice of the terminal element in the contested Article 134 offenses in part because of the providence inquiry on a similar uncontested Article 134 offense. United States v. Danes, No. ARMY 20091072, 2012 CCA LEXIS 351, at *3-*5, 2012 WL 4052518, at *2 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sep. 11, 2012)(unpublished). Conceding that the providence inquiry may establish that he was aware that a terminal element exists under Article 134, Appellant argues that there is no indication that he was on notice of the government's specific theory of culpability for the contested offenses. We agree with Appellant. "[A] guilty plea to a lesser-included offense may be used to establish facts and elements common to both the greater and lesser offense within the same specification." United States v. Grijalva, 55 M.J. 223, 227 C.A.A.F. 2001) (quotation marks and citations omitted). However, an accused's statements during a guilty plea inquiry on one offense may not be used as evidence by the government to prove a greater or separate offense to which the accused has pleaded not guilty. United States v. Resch, 65 M.J. 233 (C.A.A.F. 2007); United States v. Ramelb, 44 M.J. 625, 629 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1996). In this case, the providence inquiry with respect to a similar Article 134 offense is only "evidence of defense counsel's general awareness of the terminal element" for the contested specifications, which, without more, is insufficient notice of the terminal element. Goings, 72 M.J. at 208. Such evidence fails to place Appellant "on notice as to which clause or clauses of the terminal element he needed to defend against." Id.

 

No. 12-0336/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. COVINGTON. CCA 20090877. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 92 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 12-0448/MC. U.S. v. Jonathan E. LONSFORD. CCA 201100022. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 255 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 12-0617/MC. U.S. v. Hugo I. VALENTIN. CCA 201000683. On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. May 16, 2013), and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013) and United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Charge II and its specifications and the sentence. The findings of guilty to Charge II and its specifications are set aside. The remaining findings are affirmed. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals. That court may either dismiss Charge II and its specifications and reassess the sentence based on the affirmed findings, or it may order a rehearing on the affected charge and the sentence.*

 

* BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I would affirm based on the analysis of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and based on my dissenting opinions in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (Baker, J., dissenting), and United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting).

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0581/AF. U.S. v. Jason K. PENDERGAST. CCA 38047.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0650/AF. U.S. v. Julian M. FUENTES. CCA S32103.

No. 13-0651/AR. U.S. v. John T. TRAVIS. CCA 20120608.

No. 13-0652/NA. U.S. v. Jesse O. COOPER. CCA 201200470.

No. 13-0653/AR. U.S. v. Johnell JOLIVETTE. CCA 20120938.

No. 13-0654/AF. U.S. v. Jared R. BURDIN. CCA 38033.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-208

Friday, July 19, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0490/AR. U.S. v. Brandon J. RYLES. CCA 20110095.

No. 13-0580/AR. U.S. v. Burt A. LANCASTER. CCA 20120386.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0648/AR. U.S. v. Todd R. HUNT II. CCA 20120828.

No. 13-0649/AR. U.S. v. Jason W. MCCARVER. CCA 20120490.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0283/AF. U.S. v. Timothy L. MERRITT. CCA 37608. Appellee's motion to strike Appellant's attachment of facts outside the record but included in the joint appendix and Appellant's brief is granted.

 

No. 13-0602/AR. U.S. v. Thomas C. FLESHER. CCA 20110449. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including August 2, 2013, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 13-7001/AR. U.S. v. Hasan K. AKBAR. CCA 20050514. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to August 21, 2013.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-207

Thursday, July 18, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 10-0649/AF. U.S. v. Dean E. THOMPSON, Jr. CCA 37380.

No. 13-0546/AR. U.S. v. Ronald A. JOHNSON. CCA 20120395.

No. 13-0554/AR. U.S. v. Trevor R. CHANEY. CCA 20110799.

No. 13-0568/AR. U.S. v. Brian L. KIMBERLING. CCA 20111169.

No. 13-0569/AR. U.S. v. Fermin R. MEDINA. CCA 20110947.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0647/MC. U.S. v. Javier B. FUENTES. CCA 201300006.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-5006/AF. Airman First Class LRM, USAF, Appellant v. Lieutenant Colonel Joshua E. KASTENBERG, USAF, Military Judge, Appellee and Airman First Class Nicholas E. Daniels, USAF, Real Party In Interest. CCA 2013-05. On consideration of the Motion for Stay of Proceedings in the case of United States v. Daniels, it is ordered that said motion is hereby dismissed as moot.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-206

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 13-0124/MC. U.S. v. William C. DALTON. CCA 201100521. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2013)(order granting review), and the briefs filed by the parties, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

* We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that involuntary manslaughter under Article 119(b)(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 919(b)(1) (2006), is a lesser included offense of unpremeditated murder under Article 118(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 918(2) (2006). However, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it suggested that the comparison of elements between murder and involuntary manslaughter must be conducted or "viewed in the light of human experience." United States v. Dalton, 71 M.J. 632, 634 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2012). Such language conflicts with our past decisions. United States v. Wilkins, 71 M.J. 410, 412 (C.A.A.F. 2012); United States v. Alston, 69 M.J. 214, 216 (C.A.A.F. 2010); and United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465, 468 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (applying normal principles of statutory construction to statutory elements).

 

No. 13-0157/AF. U.S. v. Jimmy L. WILSON. CCA 37897. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it isordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER ARTICLE 12, UCMJ, APPLIES TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE AN ACCUSED AND/OR CONVICTED MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES IS CONFINED IN IMMEDIATE ASSOCIATION WITH FOREIGN NATIONALS IN A STATE OR FEDERAL FACILITY WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND, WHETHER THE RECORD IN THIS CASE PERMITS SUCH A CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF FURTHER FACT-FINDING.

 

The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of the specified issue. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 13-0157/AF. U.S. v. Jimmy L. WILSON. CCA 37897. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 12-0408/MC. U.S. v. Lawrence G. HUTCHINS III. CCA 200800393. On consideration of Appellee's petition for reconsideration of this Court's decision, and Appellant's motion to issue the mandate of the Court forthwith, it is ordered that Appellee's petition for reconsideration be, and the same is, hereby denied, and Appellant's motion to issue the mandate of the Court forthwith be, and the same is, hereby granted.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0644/AR. U.S. v. Alfred L. PEMBERTON. CCA 20110127. On consideration of Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted to August 5, 2013.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

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




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-205

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0461/AR. U.S. v. Brian S. MULLINS. CCA 20110133.

No. 13-0527/AF. U.S. v. Alexandre G. ZURITA. CCA 37717.

No. 13-0555/AR. U.S. v. Andrew H. HOLMES. CCA 20110838.

No. 13-0557/AR. U.S. v. Travis F. CARDEN. CCA 20120947.

No. 13-0558/AR. U.S. v. Tyrone L. KIRK. CCA 20121049.

No. 13-0559/AR. U.S. v. Steven D. PATTERSON. CCA 20120927.

No. 13-0560/AF. U.S. v. Matthew J. MANGAN. CCA 38223.

No. 13-0561/NA. U.S. v. Jason L. NIX. CCA 201300061.

No. 13-0562/AR. U.S. v. Bud A. MITCHELL. CCA 20120683.

No. 13-0567/AR. U.S. v. Alexei L. SUND. CCA 20120641.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0659/AF. U.S. v. Garland R. STEWART. CCA S31685.*

No. 13-0420/AF. U.S. v. Travis A. SCHMIDT. CCA 38220.*

No. 13-0644/AR. U.S. v. Alfred L. PEMBERTON. CCA 20110127.

No. 13-0645/AR. U.S. v. Kayla R. HORNE. CCA 20120188.

No. 13-0646/AF. U.S. v. Michael J. ROY. CCA 38089.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0642/AF. U.S. v. Brent J. MIZE. CCA 37993. On consideration of the motion filed by Major Scott W. Medlyn, for leave to withdraw 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.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-204

Monday, July 15, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 13-0531/AF. U.S. v. Matthew B. ALBRIGHT. CCA 37961. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that on May 23, 2013, the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered this case to be returned to it for reconsideration out of time. Appellant filed his petition in this Court on May 28, 2013. We further note that the Court of Criminal Appeals has not yet issued a decision on reconsideration. Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby dismissed without prejudice to Appellant's right to seek review in this Court after final action by the Court of Criminal Appeals on reconsideration. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review in accordance with its order of May 23, 2013.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0643/AR. U.S. v. Erik D. JENKINS. CCA 20110673.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0280/AR. U.S. v. Douglas K. WINCKELMANN. CCA 20070243. Appellee's motion for leave to file a supplemental joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 13-0265/NA. U.S. v. Decker B. JORDAN. CCA 201100621. On consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of time to file a petition for reconsideration of this Court's order issued June 18, 2013, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted, up to and including July 30, 2013.

 

No. 13-0329/AR. U.S. v. Slade MCKIM-BURWELL. CCA 20120719.

No. 13-0435/AR. U.S. v. Gary D. WARNER. CCA 20120499.

 

On consideration of the motions filed by Captain Susrut A. Carpenter, for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel in the above cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned other counsel to represent Appellants and that the new counsel have assumed representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 13-0461/AR. U.S. v. Brian S. MULLINS. CCA 20110133. On consideration of Appellant's motion to consider matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

 

No. 13-0491/AF. U.S. v. Mark J. JORDAN. CCA S31939.

No. 13-0566/AF. U.S. v. Sean C. BOGDONAS. CCA 37725.

 

On consideration of the motions filed by Major Scott W. Medlyn, for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel in the above cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned other counsel to represent Appellants and that the new counsel have assumed representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 13-0588/AR. U.S. v. John P. FIGUEROA. CCA 20110951. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including July 25, 2013, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 13-0637/NA. U.S. v. Thomas C. MOORE. CCA 201200332. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 31, 2013.

 

No. 13-0640/NA. U.S. v. Michael C. MESICK. CCA 201200385. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 1, 2013.

 

No. 13-0641/AR. U.S. v. Joseph A. HERNANDEZ. CCA 20111012. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to August 1, 2013.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-203

Friday, July 12, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0640/NA. U.S. v. Michael C. MESICK. CCA 201200385.

No. 13-0641/AR. U.S. v. Joseph A. HERNANDEZ. CCA 20111012.

No. 13-0642/AF. U.S. v. Brent J. MIZE. CCA 37993.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-202

Thursday, July 11, 2013

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0537/MC. U.S. v. Christopher M. HARRIS. CCA 201000341. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in view of United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 11-0638/AR. U.S. v. Edgar E. MARTINEZ. CCA 20090582. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 167 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 12-0328/AR. U.S. v. Bret A. GLOWTH. CCA 20090925. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and in view of United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013), United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE CHARGE AND ITS SPECIFICATIONS FAIL TO STATE OFFENSES BECAUSE THE SPECIFICATIONS DO NOT ALLEGE, EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, THE "TERMINAL ELEMENT" AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

* To the extent that the Court of Criminal Appeals relied on evidence of the defense counsel's general awareness of the terminal element to affirm the findings, it was in error. Goings, 72 M.J. at 208. Notice of the terminal element was extant in the record based on witness testimony and the defense strategy on cross-examination.

 

No. 13-0116/AR. U.S. v. Travis L. SMITH. CCA 20101040. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 92 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013) and United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.

 

No. 13-0273/AF. U.S. v. Christopher D. WALTERS. CCA 37873. On further consideration of the granted issue, 72 M.J. 247 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and in view of United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.*

 

* We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that there was notice of the missing terminal element, in part, because "after the military judge accepted the pleas of guilty, the appellant litigated the second specification of communicating a threat knowing full well that the offense required proof of the terminal elements because the military judge had expressly told him that it did." United States v. Walters, 71 M.J. 695, 697 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2012). Although "a guilty plea to a lesser-included offense may be used to establish facts and elements common to both the greater and lesser offense within the same specification," United States v. Grijalva, 55 M.J. 223, 227 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (quotation marks and citations omitted), an accused's statements during a guilty plea inquiry on one offense may not be used as evidence by the government to prove a greater or separate offense to which the accused has pleaded not guilty. United States v. Resch, 65 M.J. 233 (C.A.A.F. 2007); United States v. Ramelb, 44 M.J. 625, 629 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1996). In this case, the providence inquiry with respect to a similar Article 134 offense is only "evidence of defense counsel's general awareness of the terminal element" for the contested specifications, which, without more, is insufficient notice of the terminal element for the instant offense. Goings, 72 M.J. at 208. Such evidence fails to place Appellant "on notice as to which clause or clauses of the terminal element he needed to defend against."

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0328/AR. U.S. v. Bret A. GLOWTH. CCA 20090925. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0637/NA. U.S. v. Thomas C. MOORE. CCA 201200332.

No. 13-0638/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. BURNETT, Jr. CCA 20110240.

No. 13-0639/AR. U.S. v. Shannon B. HELTON. CCA 20110623.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-201

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 13-0536/AR. U.S. v. Jacob D. MOON. CCA 20120112. Review granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER SPECIFICATION 2 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN FAIR NOTICE THAT THE CHARGED CONDUCT OF POSSESSING "MULTIPLE IMAGES OF NUDE MINORS AND PERSONS APPEARING TO BE NUDE MINORS" WAS FORBIDDEN AND SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL ACTION.

 

II. WHETHER THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW OR FACT TO QUESTION APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA TO SPECIFICATION 2 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE, WHICH ALLEGES THAT APPELLANT POSSESSED "MULTIPLE IMAGES OF NUDE MINORS AND PERSONS APPEARING TO BE NUDE MINORS."

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0343/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. BAXTER. CCA 20100487.

No. 13-0399/AF. U.S. v. Jeffrey J. KIM. CCA 37613.

No. 13-0440/AF. U.S. v. Miguel A. GASTELUM. CCA 37887.

No. 13-0505/AF. U.S. v. Ryan B. PERRINE. CCA S31972.

No. 13-0516/AR. U.S. v. Julius L. PICKETT. CCA 20110859.

No. 13-0529/AF. U.S. v. Kyle M. WALKER. CCA 37886.

No. 13-0539/AR. U.S. v. Christopher MCGEE. CCA 20110678.

No. 13-0551/AR. U.S. v. Carlos I. VELASQUEZ. CCA 20110296.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0632/AR. U.S. v. Mark TODD. CCA 20111160.

No. 13-0633/AR. U.S. v. Michael E. MAGANA. CCA 20121116.

No. 13-0634/AR. U.S. v. Alexander J. CHRISTENSEN. CCA 20120156.

No. 13-0635/AR. U.S. v. Michael B. HARDEE. CCA 20120236.

No. 13-0636/AR. U.S. v. Johnathan W. DOMINY. CCA 20120365.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0329/AR. U.S. v. Slade MCKIM-BURWELL. CCA 20120719. Appellant's motion to dispense with requirement for joint appendix is denied.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-200

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0400/MC. U.S. v. Sheldon J. HOWARD. CCA 201200074.

No. 13-0488/AF. U.S. v. John C. MELCHER. CCA S31891.

No. 13-0535/AR. U.S. v. Richard W. COHN. CCA 20120551.

No. 13-0550/AF. U.S. v. Joshuah X. CARPENTER. CCA S32069.

No. 13-0552/AF. U.S. v. Edward L. DIAS II. CCA S31987.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0625/AR. U.S. v. Fernando ALMAGUER. CCA 20120228.

No. 13-0626/AR. U.S. v. Davon M. LOVE. CCA 20120511.

No. 13-0627/AR. U.S. v. Alva D. SUMMERLOTT. CCA 20120352.

No. 13-0628/AR. U.S. v. Jesus HERNANDEZ. CCA 20110471.

No. 13-0629/AR. U.S. v. Derek J. ANDRULAT. CCA 20120460.

No. 13-0630/AR. U.S. v. Javier OROZCO. CCA 20120133.

No. 13-0631/AR. U.S. v. Kenneth W. PARKER. CCA 20120765.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0397/AF. U.S. v. Jerome A. JONES, Jr. CCA 37528.

No. 13-0500/AF. U.S. v. Edward W. GUSSMAN. CCA 38048.

No. 13-0510/AF. U.S. v. Christopher S. FERRIS. CCA 37885.

No. 13-0573/AR. U.S. v. Calvin J. DAVENPORT. CCA 20081102.

No. 13-0601/AF. U.S. v. Korey J. TALKINGTON. CCA 37785.

 

On consideration of the motions filed by Captain Travis K. Ausland, for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel in the above cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned other counsel to represent Appellants and that the new counsel have assumed representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 13-0622/AF. U.S. v. Brent A. SNELL. CCA 37792. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 29, 2013.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-199

Monday, July 8, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0620/AR. U.S. v. Cavin B. MCKEN. CCA 20121019.

No. 13-0621/AR. U.S. v. James R. REMMERS. CCA 20120068.

No. 13-0622/AF. U.S. v. Brent A. SNELL. CCA 37792.

No. 13-0623/AR. U.S. v. Angel L. RIVERA. CCA 20120083.

No. 13-0624/AR. U.S. v. Shawn N. DELLISS. CCA 20120349.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0329/AR. U.S. v. Slade MCKIM-BURWELL. CCA 20120719. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including July 11, 2013.

 

No. 13-0435/AR. U.S. v. Gary D. WARNER. CCA 20120499. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including July 11, 2013, and no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 13-0571/AR. U.S. v. Nolan R. MOGG. CCA 20100943. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including July 18, 2013, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 13-0573/AR. U.S. v. Calvin J. DAVENPORT. CCA 20081102. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including July 23, 2013, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 13-0618/AF. U.S. v. Joseph M. BURKHART. CCA 37668. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 23, 2013.

 

No. 13-0619/NA. U.S. v. Gabriel A. MORA. CCA 201200335. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 25, 2013.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-198

Friday, July 5, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0619/NA. U.S. v. Gabriel A. MORA. CCA 201200335.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0091/AR. U.S. v. Alexander LOYA. CCA 20090770. On consideration of Appellant's motion to extend time to file the petition for reconsideration, motion for leave to file petition for reconsideration out of time, and motion for leave to supplement the petition for reconsideration with additional documents, it is ordered that said motions are hereby denied, and the petition for reconsideration is hereby dismissed as untimely filed.

 

No. 13-0435/AR. U.S. v. Gary D. WARNER. CCA 20120499. Appellant's motion to dispense with requirement for joint appendix is denied.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 13-5004/CG. U.S. v. Justin R. WHITAKER. CCA 1366.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-197

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

 

CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-5009/AF. U.S. v. Alan J. LINDGREN. CCA 37928. 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 issues:

 

I. WHETHER APPELLEE SATISFIED HIS BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DEFECTIVE SPECIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, MATERIALLY PREJUDICED HIS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WHEN HE WAS PROVIDED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE TERMINAL ELEMENT THROUGH AN ARTICLE 32 REPORT RECEIVED PRIOR TO TRIAL.

 

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS APPLIED AN ERRONEOUS STANDARD OF LAW WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER THE DEFECTIVE SPECIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, MATERIALLY PREJUDICED APPELLEE'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS 1) BY FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ON THE MISSING ELEMENT WAS "OVERWHELMING AND ESSENTIALLY UNCONTROVERTED;" 2) BY FAILING TO FIND NOTICE OF THE MISSING ELEMENT WAS EXTANT IN THE RECORD; AND 3) BY CONFLATING ERROR IN THE LACK OF NOTICE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS WITH MATERIAL PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT.

III. WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD APPLY THE FOURTH PRONG OF THE PLAIN ERROR ANALYSIS AS ARTICULATED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES V. OLANO, 507 U.S. 725 (1993), WHEN ASSESSING WHETHER THE DEFECTIVE SPECIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, MATERIALLY PREJUDICED APPELLEE'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS IN THIS CASE.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0429/AR. U.S. v. Shaun M. WILLOUGHBY. CCA 20110100.

No. 13-0489/AF. U.S. v. Zachary R. FLESTER. CCA S31965.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0615/AR. U.S. v. Brian K. DEWEESE. CCA 20121017.

No. 13-0616/AR. U.S. v. Brian D. WHITE. CCA 20110660.

No. 13-0617/AF. U.S. v. Jose M. SANTANA-PENA. CCA 37931.

No. 13-0618/AF. U.S. v. Joseph M. BURKHART. CCA 37668.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0230/AF. U.S. v. Adam E. SERNA. CCA 37822. Appellant's motion for reconsideration of this Court's order issued on March 5, 2013 is denied.

 

No. 13-0498/AF. U.S. v. Christopher J. MARTIN. CCA S32035. On consideration of Appellant's motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review without prejudice and motion to file supplemental issue, it is ordered that said motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review without prejudice is hereby granted, and said motion to file supplemental issue is denied as moot.

 

No. 13-0537/AR. U.S. v. Joseph A. SMITH. CCA 20120329. On consideration of Appellant's motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied without prejudice to filing a subsequent motion that complies with Rule 21(f).




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-196

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

 

APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 13-0390/AR. U.S. v. Dyana T. THOMAS, Sr. CCA 20100182. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that the Army Court erred in finding that the government provided notice to Appellant of the terminal element for the two contested fraternization specifications. The military judge's identification of clauses 1 and 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, during the providence inquiry did not place Appellant on notice of the government's theory of liability for the contested fraternization specifications. At most, the providence inquiry merely made Appellant generally aware of the law, which does not provide notice of the terminal element. See United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013); cf. United States v. Gaskins, 72 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2013). Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER A PROVIDENCE INQUIRY CAN CURE THE PREJUDICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF TWO CONTESTED ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, OFFENSES.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge VII and the sentence. The findings of guilty to Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge VII and the sentence are set aside. The remaining findings are affirmed. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals. That court may either dismiss Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge VII and reassess the sentence based on the affirmed findings, or it may order a rehearing on the affected charge and the sentence.* [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

* BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I would affirm based on the opinion of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and my dissenting opinions in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (Baker, J., dissenting), and United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209, 217 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Baker, C.J., dissenting).

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 13-0390/AR. U.S. v. Dyana T. THOMAS, Sr. CCA 20100182. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0470/AR. U.S. v. Jalil S. JONES. CCA 20110893.

No. 13-0476/MC. U.S. v. Erika D. CHATMAN. CCA 201200225.

No. 13-0496/AR. U.S. v. Kurtis R. LINDSEY. CCA 20110653.

No. 13-0506/AR. U.S. v. Joe L. WILSON. CCA 20110868.

No. 13-0523/AF. U.S. v. Stephen P. GUEDRY. CCA 37998.

No. 13-0545/AF. U.S. v. Jeremy M. SCOTT. CCA S32092.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0610/AR. U.S. v. Justin R. KING. CCA 20120886.

No. 13-0611/AR. U.S. v. Perry E. ZENON. CCA 20120786.

No. 13-0612/AR. U.S. v. Jose A. RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ. CCA 20120154.

No. 13-0613/AR. U.S. v. Jeffrey R. COPPENS, Jr. CCA 20120161.

No. 13-0614/AR. U.S. v. Donald G. DOBIE, Jr. CCA 20111129.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0019/AF. U.S. v. Shannon L. DOLLAR. CCA S31607.

No. 13-0399/AF. U.S. v. Jeffrey J. KIM. CCA 37613.

No. 13-0498/AF. U.S. v. Christopher J. MARTIN. CCA S32035.

No. 13-0607/AF. U.S. v. Matthew J. SOUSA. CCA 37889.

 

On consideration of the motions filed by Dwight H. Sullivan, Esq., for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned other counsel to represent Appellants and that new counsel have assumed representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 12-0501/AF. U.S. v. Jessica E. MCFADDEN. CCA 37438.

No. 13-0492/AF. U.S. v. Taylor T. STICKNEY. CCA S32106.

No. 13-0502/AF. U.S. v. Sebastian P. LABELLA. CCA 37679.

No. 13-0503/AF. U.S. v. Valentino T. LEE. CCA S32009.

No. 13-6004/AF. U.S. v. Samuel A. WICKS. CCA 2013-08.

 

On consideration of the motions filed by Major Ja Rai A. Williams, for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned other counsel to represent Appellants and that new counsel have assumed representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 13-0609/AR. U.S. v. Gregory R. MIEDEMA. CCA 20110496. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 22, 2013.

 

No. 13-5006/AF. Airman First Class LRM, USAF, Appellant v. Lieutenant Colonel Joshua E. KASTENBERG, USAF, Military Judge, Appellee and Airman First Class Nicholas E. Daniels, USAF, Real Party In Interest. CCA 2013-05. On consideration of the motion filed by Dwight H. Sullivan, Esq., for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Real Party In Interest, it appears that another counsel has been assigned to represent the Real Party In Interest and that the new counsel has assumed representation of said Real Party In Interest. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 13-195

Monday, July 1, 2013

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 13-0338/AF. U.S. v. Dalton S. DUGEN. CCA 37708.

No. 13-0469/AF. U.S. v. David C. VAZQUEZ. CCA 37647.

No. 13-0501/AF. U.S. v. Aaron J. HETMAN. CCA 37853.

No. 13-0542/AR. U.S. v. Norberto GALLEGO. CCA 20120402.

No. 13-0543/AR. U.S. v. Walter J. CLEMMONS. CCA 20120008.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 13-0608/AR. U.S. v. Bladimir S. RODRIGUEZ. CCA 20120128.

No. 13-0609/AR. U.S. v. Gregory R. MIEDEMA. CCA 20110496.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 13-0605/MC. U.S. v. Hector Y. APARCIO. CCA 201200408. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 12, 2013.

 

No. 13-0607/AF. U.S. v. Matthew J. SOUSA. CCA 37889. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 18, 2013.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 13-0061/AR. U.S. v. Ted C. SQUIRE. CCA 20091106.



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