UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Friday, December 30, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0168/MC. U.S. v. David R. Rendon. CCA 201500408.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, December 29, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0162/NA. U.S. v. Keith Barry. CCA 201500064.

No. 17-0163/MC. U.S. v. Joseph J. Faggiole. CCA 201600038.

No. 17-0164/AR. U.S. v. Corey J. Brookshire. CCA 20160332.

No. 17-0165/AR. U.S. v. Anthony T. Gardner. CCA 20140800.

No. 17-0166/AR. U.S. v. Dustyn R. Kidd. CCA 20150280.

No. 17-0167/AR. U.S. v. Noel G. Aguiar-Perez. CCA 20140715.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0060/NA. U.S. v. Matthew I. Wilson. CCA 201600194.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0641/AR. U.S. v. Ian T. Miller. CCA 20150170. Appellee's motion to supplement the record is granted.

 

No. 16-0650/AR. U.S. v. Courtney A. Craig. CCA 20150272. Appellee's motion to supplement the record is granted.

 

No. 17-0153/AR. U.S. v. Edward J. Mitchell II. CCA 20150776. Appellee's motion for an enlargement of time to file a brief is granted to January 18, 2017.

 

No. 17-0161/AR. U.S. v. Marshall D. Drake, Jr. CCA 20130414. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 17, 2017.

 

No. 17-0162/NA. U.S. v. Keith Barry. CCA 201500064. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 18, 2017.

 

No. 17-0163/MC. U.S. v. Joseph J. Faggiole. CCA 201600038. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 18, 2017.

 

No. 17-0164/AR. U.S. v. Corey J. Brookshire. CCA 20160332. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 13, 2017.

 

Special Docket Matters

 

No. A-33205. In the Matter of Jeffrey D. Moffatt. It appearing that the above-named attorney is a member of the Bar of this Court and that he has been disbarred from the practice of law by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Arizona State Bar, that pursuant to Rule 15(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, said attorney was suspended from the practice of law before this Court and was directed to show cause why he should not be disbarred, that said attorney filed a timely response to the show cause order in which he moved to vacate the order of suspension, requested an in-person hearing, and notified the Court of his appeal of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge's order of disbarment to the Arizona Supreme Court, and considering the serious nature of his misconduct and the denial of his appeal by the Arizona Supreme Court on December 13, 2016, it is by the Court, this 29th day of December, 2016, ordered that the motion to vacate the order of suspension is denied, that the request for an in-person hearing is denied, and that Jeffrey D. Moffatt is hereby disbarred from the practice of law before this Court effective the date of this Order.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0161/AR. U.S. v. Marshall D. Drake, Jr. CCA 20130414.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0158/AR. U.S. v. Ronny L. Cade, Jr. CCA 20140325.

No. 17-0159/AR. U.S. v. Jeffrey Soria. CCA 20150537.

No. 17-0160/AR. U.S. v. Steven M. Tucker. CCA 20150634.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0061/AR. U.S. v. Michael E. Paradiso. CCA 20150186.

No. 17-0096/AR. U.S. v. Jonathan Guzman. CCA 20140465.

No. 17-0097/CG. U.S. v. Johannes P. Boerlage. CCA 1423.

No. 17-0100/MC. U.S. v. Blake D. Evans. CCA 201600085.

No. 17-0103/MC. U.S. v. Anthony D. Delagarza. CCA 201600281.

No. 17-0104/MC. U.S. v. Tyler W. Hartmann. CCA 201600291.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 16-0616/AF. U.S. v. Kelvin L. O'Shaughnessy. CCA 38732. On further consideration of the granted issue (Daily Journal Nov. 29, 2016), the facts that the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued its judgment in Appellant's case on May 5, 2016, and Colonel Martin T. Mitchell was appointed by the President to the United States Court of Military Commission Review on May 25, 2016, and in light of United States v. Dalmazzi, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016), it is ordered that the order of November 29, 2016, granting review is hereby vacated, and Appellant's petition for grant of review is denied.

 

No. 16-0617/AF. U.S. v. Joseph D. Morchinek. CCA S32291. On further consideration of the granted issue (Daily Journal Oct. 18, 2016), the facts that the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued its judgment in Appellant's case on May 9, 2016, and Colonel Martin T. Mitchell was appointed by the President to the United States Court of Military Commission Review on May 25, 2016, and in light of United States v. Dalmazzi, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016), it is ordered that the order of October 18, 2016, granting review is hereby vacated, and Appellant's petition for grant of review is denied.

 

No. 16-0660/AF. U.S. v. Andre K. Lewis. CCA 38671. On further consideration of the granted issue (Daily Journal Dec. 19, 2016), the facts that the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued its judgment in Appellant's case on May 17, 2016, and Colonel Martin T. Mitchell was appointed by the President to the United States Court of Military Commission Review on May 25, 2016, and in light of United States v. Dalmazzi, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016), it is ordered that the order of December 19, 2016, granting review is hereby vacated, and Appellant's petition for grant of review is denied.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0641/AR. U.S. v. Ian T. Miller. CCA 20150170. On further consideration of the granted issues (Daily Journal, Nov. 30, 2016), it does not appear there is adequate evidence in the record demonstrating that Judge Celtnieks was appointed to the United States Court of Military Commission Review and sworn as a judge of that court. Accordingly, it is ordered that within 10 days of the date of this Order, counsel for the parties shall file documentation with the Court relating to the appointment of Judge Celtnieks to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and establishing the date when he took the oath of office to execute the appointment.

 

No. 16-0650/AR. U.S. v. Courtney A. Craig. CCA 20150272. On further consideration of the granted issues (Daily Journal, Oct. 20, 2016), it does not appear there is adequate evidence in the record demonstrating that Judge Herring and Judge Burton were appointed to the United States Court of Military Commission Review and sworn as judges of that court. Accordingly, it is ordered that within 10 days of the date of this Order, counsel for the parties shall file documentation with the Court relating to the appointments of Judges Herring and Burton to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and establishing the date when they took the oath of office to execute the appointments.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Friday, December 23, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0155/AF. U.S. v. Michael L. Merritt. CCA 38819.

No. 17-0156/AF. U.S. v. Joseph R. Scher. CCA S32329.

No. 17-0157/AF. U.S. v. David W. Turner II. CCA S32317.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0705/AR. U.S. v. Sean R. Erikson. CCA 20150130. On consideration of Appellee's motion to file a supplemental joint appendix and Appellant's motion extend time to file a reply brief, it is ordered that Appellee's motion to file a supplemental joint appendix is hereby granted, and Appellant's motion to extend time to file a reply brief is granted to January 6, 2017.

 

No. 16-0731/AR. U.S. v. Austin L. Hendrix. CCA 20140476. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to January 26, 2017.

 

No. 17-0079/AF. United States, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Patrick Carter, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. CCA 38708. Appellee/Cross-Appellant's motion to dismiss the certificate for grant of review is denied.

 

No. 17-0138/AF. U.S. v. Jason K. Slape. CCA 38801. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 9, 2017.

 

No. 17-0139/AR. United States, Cross-Appellant/Appellee v. Justin M. Gurczyski, Cross-Appellee/Appellant. CCA 20160402. Cross-Appellee/Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to January 18, 2017.

 

No. 17-0142/AR. U.S. v. Antione D. Williams. CCA 20130446. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 11, 2017.

 

No. 17-0143/CG. U.S. v. Ernest M. Ramos. CCA 1418. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 11, 2017.

 

No. 17-0148/AF. U.S. v. Stephen H. Claxton. CCA 38188. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 11, 2017.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, December 22, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0142/AR. U.S. v. Antione D. Williams. CCA 20130446.

No. 17-0143/CG. U.S. v. Ernest M. Ramos. CCA 1418.

No. 17-0144/AR. U.S. v. Adam D. Bigelow. CCA 20150349.

No. 17-0145/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. Morrill. CCA 20140197.

No. 17-0146/AR. U.S. v. Jason M. Alston. CCA 20140566.

No. 17-0147/AR. U.S. v. Karena A. Dupree. CCA 20150259.

No. 17-0148/AF. U.S. v. Stephen H. Claxton. CCA 38188.

No. 17-0149/AF. U.S. v. Michael S. Ingram. CCA 38849.

No. 17-0150/AF. U.S. v. Anthony M. Flackus. CCA 38847.

No. 17-0151/AR. U.S. v. Dayshawn M. Guice. CCA 20150774.

No. 17-0152/AR. U.S. v. Michael A. Russell. CCA 20150397.

No. 17-0154/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan L. Roe. CCA S32322.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0020/NA. U.S. v. Danny Soto. CCA 201500384.

No. 17-0089/AR. U.S. v. Joshua T. Blazer. CCA 20150135.

 

Certificates for Review Filed

 

No. 17-0153/AR. United States, Appellant v. Edward J. Mitchell, II, Appellee. CCA 20150776. Notice is hereby given that a 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, and a supporting brief under Rule 22, together with a motion to stay trial proceedings were filed on this date on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE IS VIOLATED WHEN A SUSPECT VOLUNTARILY UNLOCKS HIS PHONE WITHOUT GIVING HIS PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER TO INVESTIGATORS.

 

II. WHETHER THE EDWARDS RULE IS VIOLATED WHEN INVESTIGATORS ASK A SUSPECT, WHO HAS REQUESTED COUNSEL AND RETURNED TO HIS PLACE OF DUTY, TO UNLOCK HIS PHONE INCIDENT TO A VALID SEARCH AUTHORIZATION.

 

III. WHETHER, ASSUMING INVESTIGATORS VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE OR THE EDWARDS RULE, THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0745/AR. U.S. v. Andrew D. Griffith. CCA 20150195. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0028/CG. U.S. v. Shane E. Reese. CCA 1422. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A MAJOR CHANGE TO A SPECIFICATION AFTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS'S TESTIMONY DID NOT SUPPORT THE OFFENSE AS ORIGINALLY CHARGED.

 

II. WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE WHERE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE WORDS OF CRIMINALITY AND WHERE THE ALLEGED CONDUCT FELL WITHIN A LISTED OFFENSE OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0048/AR. U.S. v. David J. Dorris. CCA 20140185. 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 on the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER JUDGE HERRING, A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF HE WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER HIS SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0093/AR. U.S. v. Michael B. O'Connor. CCA 20130853. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES PAULETTE V. BURTON AND JAMES W. HERRING AS CMCR JUDGES MEANT THAT THEY NO LONGER MET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

II. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE TRIBUNAL VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0140/AR. U.S. v. Kellan D. Mark. CCA 20160301.

No. 17-0141/AR. U.S. v. Raymond J. Cooper. CCA 20150425.

 

Certificates for Review Filed

 

No. 17-0139/AR. United States, Appellant v. Justin M. Gurczyski, Appellee. CCA 20160402. 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 on this date on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY A DIGITAL FORENSIC EXAMINER DISCOVERED DURING A SEARCH FOR APPELLEE'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH A CHILD VICTIM.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Monday, December 19, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0133/AR. U.S. v. Paul E. Thomas. CCA 20150269.

No. 17-0134/AR. U.S. v. Olanrewaju O. Dairo. CCA 20160213.

No. 17-0135/AR. U.S. v. Nathaneal H. Ramos. CCA 20140475.

No. 17-0136/NA. U.S. v. Jonathan C. Golden. CCA 201600046.

No. 17-0137/AF. U.S. v. Daniel J. Rodgers. CCA 38832.

No. 17-0138/AF. U.S. v. Jason K. Slape. CCA 38801.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0071/AR. U.S. v. Sean D. Thomas. CCA 20150205.

No. 17-0076/AF. U.S. v. Jerimia D. Wood. CCA S32346.

No. 17-0080/CG. U.S. v. Daniel G. Eyer. CCA 1417.

No. 17-0085/AF. U.S. v. Robert A. Carrubba. CCA S32341.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0660/AF. U.S. v. Andre K. Lewis. CCA 38671. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL, A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF HE WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER HIS SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0008/AR. U.S. v. Matthew R. Strempler. CCA 20150527. On consideration of the Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's Order issued November 8, 2016, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby granted, that the Order of November 8, 2016, denying the petition for grant of review is hereby vacated, and that the petition for grant of review is hereby granted on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0067/AR. U.S. v. Anthony K. Bickerstaff. CCA 20160065. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0074/AR. U.S. v. Jose L. Nataren. CCA 20130413. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0083/AR. U.S. v. Thomas L. Humburd, Jr. CCA 20150214. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0094/AR. U.S. v. Jeffrey W. Thompson, Jr. CCA 20160169. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGES BURTON AND CELTNIEKS.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES BURTON AND CELTNIEKS DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Friday, December 16, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0128/AR. U.S. v. Anthony E. Perez. CCA 20160256.

No. 17-0129/AR. U.S. v. Khristophor M. Villar. CCA 20160117.

No. 17-0130/AR. U.S. v. Seddrick M. Rhodes. CCA 20160265.

No. 17-0131/AR. U.S. v. Cameron J. Conrad. CCA 20150721.

No. 17-0132/AR. U.S. v. Scott E. Kissell. CCA 20160014.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0671/AF. U.S. v. Keanu D.W. Ortiz. CCA 38839. On further consideration of the granted issues in the above-entitled case (Daily Journal, October 27, 2016), it is ordered that Issue II is hereby amended as follows:

 

II. WHETHER JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL'S SERVICE ON BOTH THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS STATUS AS A PRINCIPAL OFFICER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.

 

The petition for grant of review is also granted on the following specified issue:

 

III. WHETHER JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL WAS IN FACT A PRINCIPAL OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF 10 U.S.C. 949b(4)(C) AND (D), AUTHORIZING REASSIGNMENT OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES SO APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OR HIS DESIGNEE.

 

The parties will file contemporaneous briefs and a joint appendix on the granted issues as amended and the specified issue on or before January 24, 2017. Reply briefs will not be filed. Amicus curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(1) will be filed on or before January 24, 2017, and motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(3) will be filed on or before January 17, 2017. Should said motions be granted, amicus curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(3) will also be filed on or before January 24, 2017.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0705/AR. U.S. v. Sean R. Erikson. CCA 20150130. On consideration of the Hearing Notice issued December 13, 2016, setting the above-mentioned case for oral argument, it is ordered that said hearing notice is hereby rescinded. Appellee's motion to reschedule oral argument is hereby denied as moot, and oral argument for the above-mentioned case will be rescheduled for a later date specified by the Court.

 

No. 16-0689/AF. U.S. v. Charles D. Buford. CCA 2016-04. On consideration of the Hearing Notice issued December 13, 2016, setting the above-mentioned case for oral argument, it is ordered that said hearing notice is hereby rescinded, and that oral argument for the above-mentioned case will be rescheduled for a later date specified by the Court.

 

No. 16-0731/AR. U.S. v. Austin L. Hendrix. CCA 20140476. On consideration of the Hearing Notice issued December 15, 2016, setting the above-mentioned case for oral argument, it is ordered that said hearing notice is hereby rescinded, and that oral argument for the above-mentioned case will be rescheduled for a later date specified by the Court.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, December 15, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0125/AR. U.S. v. Joshua G. Thomas. CCA 20150393.

No. 17-0126/AF. U.S. v. Austin R. Swanson. CCA 38827.

No. 17-0127/AF. U.S. v. Matthew M.R. Booth. CCA 38850.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0075/AF. U.S. v. James B. Richey. CCA S32362.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 17-0082/AR. U.S. v. Walter L. Graham, Jr. CCA 20150364. 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.*

 

* It is noted that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly summarized the findings. The lower court stated that Appellant pleaded guilty to four specifications of forcibly sodomizing his stepdaughter. Actually, Appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, three specifications of forcible sodomy.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 17-0099/AR. In Re Timothy B. Hennis. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, and Petitioner's motion to stay proceedings of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals pending petition for extraordinary writ, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied, and said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to raising the issues asserted during the course of normal appellate review.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0727/AF. U.S. v. James W. Richards IV. CCA 38346. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE PANEL OF AFCCA THAT HEARD APPELLANT'S CASE WAS IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

II. WHETHER THE 9 NOVEMBER 2011 SEARCH AUTHORIZATION WAS OVERBROAD IN FAILING TO LIMIT THE DATES OF THE COMMUNICATIONS BEING SEARCHED, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.

 

No. 17-0063/AF. U.S. v. Jerry C. Harrison. CCA 38745. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE MEMBERS, "IF BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ANY OFFENSE CHARGED, YOU MUST FIND HIM GUILTY," WHERE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY CO., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977) AND THERE IS INCONSISTENT APPLICATION BETWEEN THE SERVICES OF THE INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO WHEN MEMBERS MUST OR SHOULD CONVICT AN ACCUSED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 17-0041/AR. U.S. v. Justin M. Gurczynski. CCA 20140518. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0044/AR. U.S. v. Andy Delvalle. CCA 20160157. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0059/AR. U.S. v. Ethan J. Markley. CCA 20140956. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF AN APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0070/AR. U.S. v. Kyle W. Miner. CCA 20160268. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER JUDGE LARSS G. CELTNIEKS, JUDGE ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF HE WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER HIS SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0073/AR. U.S. v. William C. Millay. CCA 20130341. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF AN APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0077/AR. U.S. v. Salvador Jimenez-Victoria. CCA 20140733. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0123/AF. U.S. v. Courtney R. Canada. CCA S32298.

No. 17-0124/AR. U.S. v. Phillip S. Lewis, Jr. CCA 20160329.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0759/AR. U.S. v. Karina Flores-Santos. CCA 20140066. On consideration of Appellant's motion to attach exhibits and petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said motion is denied, and that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM PRESIDING IN APPELLANT'S CASE WHERE HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS CHIEF OF JUSTICE AND SUPERVISED ALL PROSECUTIONS FOR APPELLANT'S UNIT, AND HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE FULL EXTENT OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIONS FROM HIS PRIOR POSITION, INCLUDING CONSULTING ON CASES AT THE PRE-PREFERRAL AND INVESTIGATION STAGE.

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to an appropriate convening authority to order a hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), to make findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the matter underlying the granted issue. At the conclusion of the DuBay hearing, the record will be transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 866(c) (2012). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 867 (2012), shall apply.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Monday, December 12, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0120/AR. U. S. v. Darreus J. Kemp. CCA 20160214.

No. 17-0121/AR. U.S. v. Elvis R. Garcia. CCA 20150715.

No. 17-0122/AF. U.S. v. William L. Wareham. CCA 38820.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0018/AR. U.S. v. Alan R. Shurtleff. CCA 20140633.

No. 17-0033/MC. U.S. v. Christopher M. Henegar. CCA 201500379.

No. 17-0043/AR. U.S. v. Eugene J. Clement. CCA 20140502.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 17-0098/AF. Yogendra Rambharose, Petitioner v. United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0586/MC. U.S. v. Nhubu C. Chikaka. CCA 201400251. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE ADMITTED ON THE MERITS A CAMPAIGN PLAN TO "FULLY OPERATIONALIZE THE COMMANDANT'S GUIDANCE" FROM THE HERITAGE TOUR, AND THEN DURING SENTENCING ADMITTED A PICTURE OF THE COMMANDANT AND ALLOWED APPELLANT'S COMMANDING OFFICER TO TESTIFY THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE MEMBERS TO ADJUDGE A HARSH SENTENCE, DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIND EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DISPROVE UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE IN THIS CASE?

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS, "IF, BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, YOU MUST FIND HIM GUILTY," WHERE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY CO., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977), AND THERE IS INCONSISTENT APPLICATION BETWEEN THE SERVICES OF THE INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO WHEN MEMBERS MUST OR SHOULD CONVICT AN ACCUSED.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.*

 

* Judge Ryan has recused herself in this case and did not participate.

 

No. 16-0731/AR. U.S. v. Austin L. Hendrix. CCA 20140476. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED A DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS RELATED TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT DURING A VOICE LINEUP.

 

II. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

III. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

IV. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

V. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AN EXPERT CONSULTANT, EP, IN THE FIELD OF AUDIO FORENSIC SCIENCE AND VOICE IDENTIFICATION.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I and Issue V only.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, December 8, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0062/AR. U.S. v. Ricky X. Diamon. CCA 20150358.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 17-0050/AR. U.S. v. Donnell M. Spriggs. CCA 20150077. 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 on the following issue:

 

WHETHER JUDGE JAMES W. HERRING AND JUDGE LARSS G. CELTNIEKS, JUDGES ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER THEIR SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICERS.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0056/AR. U.S. v. Jodi R. Coker. CCA 20160202. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0064/AR. U.S. v. Nathan A. Kelley. CCA 20140701. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0066/AR. U.S. v. Marcelino Trejo. CCA 20160479. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGES CELTNIEKS AND BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES CELTNIEKS AND BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

III. WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0117/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin R. Etter. CCA 20150422.

No. 17-0118/AR. U.S. v. Tyrone E. Stanley. CCA 20150772.

No. 17-0119/AR. U.S. v. Jhon C. Jean-Louis. CCA 20150739.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 17-0069/AR. In re Robert B. Bergdahl, Petitioner. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of mandamus and Petitioner's motion to file an order from the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, add an issue and to construe the petition as a writ-appeal and motion to file an order from the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on suggestion for consideration en banc, it is ordered that said motion to file an order from the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, add an issue and to construe the petition as a writ-appeal is hereby denied, that said petition for extraordinary relief is hereby denied, and that said motion to file an order from the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on suggestion for consideration en banc is hereby denied as moot.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0658/AR. U.S. v. Tyler F. Ho. CCA 20140068. Appellee's motion to file a supplemental joint appendix and motion to substitute appendix table of contents are hereby granted.

 

No. 16-0727/AF. U.S. v. James W. Richards IV. CCA 38346. On consideration of Appellant's motion to extend time to file matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and motion to file an appendix pursuant to Grostefon matters, it is ordered that said motions are hereby denied.

 

No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA 20140939. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to January 9, 2017.

 

No. 17-0114/AF. U.S. v. Keoni A. Chavarria. CCA S32355. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 27, 2016.

 

Hearings

 

No. 16-0546/AF. U.S. v. Rodney B. Boyce. CCA 38673.

No. 16-0651/AF. U.S. v. Nicole A. Dalmazzi. CCA 38808.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0114/AF. U.S. v. Keoni A. Chavarria. CCA S32355.

No. 17-0115/MC. U.S. v. Mark Tamburello. CCA 201600109.

No. 17-0116/AR. U.S. v. Aarron D. Buckner. CCA 20150323.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0024/AR. U.S. v. Joshua A. Tankersley. CCA 20140074.

 

Hearings

 

No. 16-0424/MC. U.S. v. Mark J. Rosario. CCA 201500251.

No. 16-0555/AR. U.S. v. Jason M. Commisso. CCA 20140205.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Monday, December 5, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0031/AR. U.S. v. Francisco I. Narewski. CCA 20140080.

No. 17-0058/AR. U.S. v. Cody D. Young. CCA 20150729.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 17-0035/AR. U.S. v. Jeffry A. Feliciano, Jr. CCA 20140766. 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 on the following issues:

 

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL ON THE DEFENSE OF VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE PANEL THAT APPELLANT'S MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT MUST BE BOTH HONEST AND REASONABLE, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 17-0109/AR. U.S. v. Charles Bonilla. CCA 20131084. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 20, 2016.

 

No. 17-0111/AR. U.S. v. Francisco Galvan. CCA 20150574. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2016.

 

No. 17-0112/AR. U.S. v. Jason R. Crews. CCA 20130766. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2016.

 

No. 17-0113/AR. U.S. v. Antonio G. Salazar. CCA 20150611. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 22, 2016.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Friday, December 2, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0111/AR. U.S. v. Francisco Galvan. CCA 20150574.

No. 17-0112/AR. U.S. v. Jason R. Crews. CCA 20130766.

No. 17-0113/AR. U.S. v. Antonio G. Salazar. CCA 20150611.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0051/AR. U.S. v. Joselito Arroyo, Jr. CCA 20150362.

No. 17-0052/AF. U.S. v. Benjamin J. Moore. CCA 38773.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, December 1, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0110/AR. U.S. v. Manuel Rios. CCA 20140971.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 17-0025/MC. U.S. v. Lucas Eastman. CCA 201600071.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0711/AF. U.S. v. Michael J.D. Briggs. CCA 38730. On consideration of the issue raised by the Appellant on October 31, 2016, in the separate appendix pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), it is ordered that the petition for grant of review of the above-referenced Grostefon issue is hereby denied. The Court will consider the case only on the issues granted review on October 19, 2016.



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