UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Monday, October 31, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0049/MC. U.S. v. Tanner J. Forrester. CCA 201500295.

No. 17-0050/AR. U.S. v. Donnell M. Spriggs. CCA 20150077.

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

Friday, October 28, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0046/AF. U.S. v. James M. Sauter, Jr. CCA 38772.

No. 17-0047/AR. U.S. v. Adrian T. Douglas. CCA 20140449.

No. 17-0048/AR. U.S. v. David J. Dorris. CCA 20140185.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0712/AR. U.S. v. James G. Donohue. CCA 20140124. 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW JUDGES JAMES WILSON HERRING, JR. AND PAULETTE VANCE BURTON ARE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT AS TWO OF THE ARMY COURT OR CRIMINAL APPEALS JUDGES ON THE PANEL THAT DECIDED APPELLANT'S CASE.

 

II. WHETHER THE SERVICE OF JUDGES JAMES WILSON HERRING, JR., AND JUDGE PAULETTE VANCE BURTON ON BOTH THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR STATUS AS SUPERIOR OFFICERS ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0757/AR. U.S. v. Trevor L. Sands. CCA 20130946. 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 JUDGES BURTON AND HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES BURTON AND HERRING DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0651/AF. U.S. v. Nicole A. Dalmazzi. CCA 38808. On further consideration of the granted issues, it appears that the record of trial and joint appendix contain information documenting the President's nomination of Colonel Martin Mitchell to the United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), as well as the Senate's confirmation of Colonel Mitchell to that position. However, it does not appear that there is adequate evidence in the record demonstrating that Colonel Mitchell was subsequently appointed to the CMCR. Accordingly, it is ordered that on or before the 8th day of November, 2016, counsel for the parties shall file documentation with the Court relating to Colonel Mitchell's 2016 appointment and commission to the CMCR, and establishing the date when he took the oath of office to execute that appointment.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, October 27, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0045/AF. U.S. v. Dane A. Naro. CCA S32305.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 16-0662/MC. U.S. v. Emilio R. Moran. CCA 201500380.

No. 16-0740/AR. U.S. v. Samuel A. Wright. CCA 20130296.

No. 16-0750/NA. U.S. v. Patricia D. Martinez. CCA 201600069.

No. 16-0755/AF. U.S. v. Juan M.M. Silva. CCA S32316.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0671/AF. U.S. v. Keanu D.W. Ortiz. CCA 38839. 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW JUDGE, MARTIN T. MITCHELL, IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT AS ONE OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUDGES ON THE PANEL THAT DECIDED APPELLANT'S CASE.

 

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 SUPERIOR OFFICER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0739/AR. U.S. v. Collins Nyangau. CCA 20150495. 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 DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0751/AR. U.S. v. D'Andre R. Fletcher. CCA 20140949. 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 APPOINTMENTS AS COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGES CELTNIEKS AND BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, JUDGES BURTON AND CELTNIEKS DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0761/AR. U.S. v. Jacob I. McGowan. CCA 20150807. 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 DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 17-0002/AR. U.S. v. Alvin J. Fogle. CCA 20140534. 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 DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0689/AF. U.S. v. Charles D. Buford. CCA 2016-04. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to November 7, 2016.

 

No. 17-0041/AR. U.S. v. Justin M. Gurcynski. CCA 20140518. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 15, 2016.

 

Petitions for Reconsideration Denied

 

No. 16-0277/AR. U.S. v. William P. Moynihan. CCA 20130855. On consideration of Appellee's petition for reconsideration of this Court's decision to vacate and remand in light of United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is, hereby denied.

 

No. 16-0369/AR. U.S. v. Arturo A. Tafoya. CCA 20140798. On consideration of Appellee's petition for reconsideration of this Court's decision to vacate and remand in light of United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is, hereby denied.

 

No. 16-0416/AR. U.S. v. Gene N. Williams. CCA 20130582. On consideration of Appellee's petition for reconsideration of this Court's decision to vacate and remand in light of United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is, hereby denied.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0041/AR. U.S. v. Justin M. Gurcynski. CCA 20140518.

No. 17-0042/AR. U.S. v. Ali A. Alirad, Jr. CCA 20150404.

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

No. 17-0044/AR. U.S. v. Andy Delvalle. CCA 20160157.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 17-0009/AF. Sebastian P. LaBella, Petitioner v. United States, and United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram vobis or, in the alternative, writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0712/AR. U.S. v. James G. Donohue. CCA 20140124. Appellee's motion to file a 10-day answer letter out of time is denied.

 

No. 17-0037/AF. U.S. v. Cory D. Phillips. CCA S38771. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 14, 2016.

 

Hearings

 

No. 16-0336/CG. U.S. v. Omar M. Gomez. CCA 1394.

No. 16-0267/AR. U.S. v. Nathan C. Wilson. CCA 20140135.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

 

Hearings

 

No. 16-0500/AF. U.S. v. Justin L. Fetrow. CCA 38631.

No. 16-0296/AF. U.S. v. Joseph R. Dockery III. CCA 38624.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Monday, October 24, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0036/AF. U.S. v. Joseph L. Camacho, Jr. CCA S32324.

No. 17-0037/AF. U.S. v. Cory D. Phillips. CCA S38771.

No. 17-0038/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Smith. CCA 20140353.

No. 17-0040/AR. U.S. v. Keith D. Land. CCA 20160220.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 16-0747/MC. U.S. v. Brandon J. Johnson-Jordan. CCA 201500174.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Filings

 

No. 17-0039/NA. In Re Joshua G. Anderson. Notice is hereby given that correspondence from Mr. Joshua G. Anderson, which this Court construes as a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 18, 2016, and placed on the docket this 24th day of October, 2016. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 17-0028/CG. U.S. v. Shane E. Reese. CCA 1422. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 8, 2016.

 

No. 17-0031/AR. U.S. v. Francisco I. Narewski. CCA 20140080. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 9, 2016.

 

No. 17-0033/MC. U.S. v. Christopher M. Henegar. CCA 201500379. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 10, 2016.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Friday, October 21, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0032/AR. U.S. v. Sean M. Ahern. CCA 20130822.

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

No. 17-0035/AR. U.S. v. Jeffry A. Feliciano, Jr. CCA 20140766.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0530/AF. U.S. v. Patrick A. Shea. CCA S32225. Appellant's motion to file a supplemental joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 17-0034/NA. U.S. v. Richard A. Latour. CCA 201600114. Notice is hereby given that a motion for an enlargement of time to file a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and motion to stay the trial proceedings were filed under Rule 30 on this 21st day of October, 2016. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said motions are hereby denied.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, October 20, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0030/AF. U.S. v. Kyle A. Drake. CCA S32358.

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

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 16-0698/AR. U.S. v. Derek T. Overmyer. CCA 20150062.

No. 16-0724/AF. U.S. v. Donald R.B. Simmons. CCA 38788.

No. 16-0743/AR. U.S. v. Lionel P. Scott. CCA 20150595.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 16-0501/AF. U.S. v. Richard A. Rivera. CCA 38649. 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 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0490/MC. U.S. v. Jonathan A. Lopez. CCA 201400289. 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 issue specified by the Court:

 

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 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.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0599/AR. U.S. v. Jared D. Herrmann. CCA 20131064. 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 THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO FIND APPELLANT COMMITTED RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, WHICH REQUIRES PROOF THE CONDUCT WAS LIKELY TO PRODUCE DEATH OR GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0658/AR. U.S. v. Tyler F. Ho. CCA 20140068. 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 APPELLANT WAS PUNISHED FOR 28 DAYS BY BEING FORCED TO QUARTER A JUNIOR OFFICER IN HIS HOME AND NOT AWARDED CREDIT.

 

II. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENTS AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGES CELTNIEKS, BURTON AND HERRING.

 

III. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES BURTON AND HERRING DO NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.

 

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

 

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

 

No. 16-0670/AR. U.S. v. Matthew N. Watkins. CCA 20140275. 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 specified by the Court:

 

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

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

No. 16-0680/AR. U.S. v. Shquon T. Hodge. CCA 20160056. 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 specified by the Court:

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

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0725/AR. U.S. v. Jacob D. Blakesley. CCA 20150012. 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 specified by the Court:

 

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 DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0756/AF. U.S. v. Timothy J. Morgan. CCA 38825. 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 specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS, "IF BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ANY OFFENSE CHARGED, YOU MUST FIND THE ACCUSED 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.

 

Petitions for Reconsideration Granted

 

No. 16-0650/AR. U.S. v. Courtney A. Craig. CCA 20150272. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's Order issued 12 August 2016, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby granted, that the Order of 12 August 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 APPOINTMENTS 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 DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0028/CG. U.S. v. Shane E. Reese. CCA 1422.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Filings

 

No. 17-0029/AF. Clarence Anderson III v. United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0663/MC. U.S. v. Travis V. Nauta. CCA 201500244. 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 issue:

 

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 INSTRUCTION RELATING TO WHEN MEMBERS MUST OR SHOULD CONVICT AN ACCUSED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0705/AR. U.S. v. Sean R. Erikson. CCA 20150130. 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 IN EXCLUDING EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIM PREVIOUSLY MADE A FALSE ACCUSATION OF SEXUAL CONTACT AGAINST ANOTHER SOLDIER.

 

II. CMCR JUDGES LARSS G. CELTNIEKS AND PAULETTE V. BURTON ARE NOT STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.

 

III. EVEN IF CMCR JUDGES LARSS G. CELTNIEKS AND PAULETTE V. BURTON ARE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, THEIR SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS SUPERIOR OFFICERS.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on issue I only.

 

No. 16-0711/AF. U.S. v. Michael J.D. Briggs. CCA 38730. 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 AFCCA PANEL THAT HEARD APPELLANT'S CASE WAS IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0229/AF. U.S. v. Ellwood T. Bowen. CCA 38616. On consideration of the motion filed by John G. Scott, Esq., to allow law student Adam Zenger to present oral argument as amicus curiae on behalf of Appellee, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted, and that amicus curiae will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.

 

No. 16-0229/AF. U.S. v. Ellwood T. Bowen. CCA 38616. On consideration of the motion filed by Michael N. Mulvania, Esq., to allow law student Patrick D. Kummerer to present oral argument as amicus curiae on behalf of Appellant, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted, and that amicus curiae will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.

 

No. 16-0484/AF. U.S. v. Christopher L. Oliver. CCA 38481. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief is granted to October 21, 2016.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0026/AR. U.S. v. Joshua R. Luna. CCA 20150365.

No. 17-0027/AR. U.S. v. Nicholas E. White. CCA 20140945.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 16-0734/AR. U.S. v. Christopher R. Gamblin. CCA 20140557.

No. 16-0742/MC. U.S. v. Nathan M. Villarreal. CCA 201500399.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0617/AF. U.S. v. Joseph D. Morchinek. CCA S32291. 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT AS ONE OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUDGES ON THE PANEL THAT DECIDED APPELLANT'S CASE.

 

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 SUPERIOR OFFICER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0715/AR. U.S. v. Zachary A. Bennett. CCA 20121072. 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 APPOINTMENTS AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGES BURTON AND HERRING.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES BURTON AND HERRING DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0723/AR. U.S. v. Kyle D. Rich. CCA 20130805. 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 BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE BURTON DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0733/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Melvin. CCA 20140761. 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 CMCR JUDGES LARSS G. CELTNIEKS AND PAULETTE V. BURTON ARE NOT STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.

 

II. EVEN IF CMCR JUDGES LARSS G. CELTNIEKS AND PAULETTE V. BURTON ARE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER THEIR SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS SUPERIOR OFFICERS.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 16-0746/AR. U.S. v. Ryan W. Rochford. CCA 20140565. 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.

 

II. WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0711/AF. U.S. v. Michael J.D. Briggs. CCA 38730. On consideration of Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review, and Appellant's motion to supplement the record, it is ordered that Appellant's motion to supplement the record is hereby granted, and that Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review is hereby denied as moot.

 

No. 16-0747/MC. U.S. v. Brandon J. Johnson-Jordan. CCA 201500174. On consideration of Appellee's motion to strike, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied.

 

Petitions for Reconsideration Granted

 

No. 16-0713/AR. U.S. v. Samuel E. Nealy III. CCA 20140029. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's Order issued September 27, 2016, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby granted, that the Order of September 27, 2016, denying the petition for grant of review is hereby vacated, and the petition for grant of review 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 MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

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

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Monday, October 17, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

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

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0651/AF. U.S. v. Nicole A. Dalmazzi. CCA 38808. On consideration of the motions filed by the Military Commissions Defense Organization for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of neither party and to allow argument as amicus curiae, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted, and that amicus curiae will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.

 

No. 16-0746/AR. U.S. v. Ryan W. Rochford. CCA 20140565. Appellant's motion to submit corrected index is granted.

 

No. 16-0748/NA. U.S. v. David W. Neiman. CCA 201500119. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 1, 2016.

 

No. 17-0018/AR. U.S. v. Alan R. Shurtleff. CCA 20140633. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 3, 2016.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Friday, October 14, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0016/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. Cottner. CCA 20150733.

No. 17-0017/AR. U.S. v. Jasmine S. Hercules. CCA 20150197.

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

No. 17-0019/AR. U.S. v. Luavasa F. Tauala, Jr. CCA 20140658.

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

No. 17-0021/AR. U.S. v. Alvin S. Banks. CCA 20130948.

No. 17-0022/AR. U.S. v. Joseph A. Warren. CCA 20150104.

No. 17-0023/AR. U.S. v. Sammy G. Gulley. CCA 20160196.

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




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, October 13, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0014/AR. U.S. v. Stephen C. Warren. CCA 20140510.

No. 17-0015/AF. U.S. v. Dustin B. Wood. CCA 38792.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 16-0707/AR. U.S. v. Miguel A. Molina. CCA 20130567.

No. 16-0736/AR. U.S. v. Kristopher S. Wood. CCA 20150601.

No. 16-0737/AR. U.S. v. Daniel E. Moyano-Fermin. CCA 20140910.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0722/AR. U.S. v. Max S. Maydoney. CCA 20150324. 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 PAULETTE V. BURTON, CMCR JUDGE, IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY CCA, AND EVEN IF SHE IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY CCA, WHETHER HER SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HER NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0013/AF. U.S. v. Alex R. Goss. CCA 38805.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Dismissed

 

No. 16-0620/AF. U.S. v. Victorino Refre, Jr. CCA 2016-08. On consideration of Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review for lack of jurisdiction, Appellant's motion to extend time to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review and Appellant's second motion to extend time to file an answer to Appellee's motion to dismiss, it is ordered that the Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review for lack of jurisdiction is hereby granted and Appellant's motions to extend time are hereby denied as moot.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0588/NA. U.S. v. Adam S. Nelms. CCA 201400369. Appellant's petition for grant of review granted on the following issue:

 

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 A CHARGED OFFENSE, YOU MUST FIND HIM GUILTY OF THAT OFFENSE," 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.

 

Miscellaneous Docket Petitions Dismissed

 

No. 16-0672/AF. Victorino Refre, Jr. v. U.S. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of error coram nobis is hereby granted for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0658/AR. U.S. v. Tyler F. Ho. CCA 20140068. Appellant's motion to consider additional assignments of error granted. Appellee may file an answer to the additional assignments of error on or before November 1, 2016.

 

No. 16-0727/AF. U.S. v. James W. Richards, IV. CCA 38346. Appellant's third motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including October 14, 2016.

 

No. 17-0010/MC. U.S. v. Alfredo Solis. CCA 201500249. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 31, 2016.

 

Hearings

 

No. 16-0360/AR. U.S. v. Todd D. Sewell. CCA 20130460.

No. 16-0214/NA. U.S. v. Michael Z. Pabelona. CCA 201400224.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0010/MC. U.S. v. Alfredo Solis. CCA 201500249.

No. 17-0011/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin J. Durham. CCA 20150377.

No. 17-0012/AR. U.S. v. Thomas M. Hanna. CCA 20140934.

 

Petitions for Reconsideration Granted

 

No. 16-0677/AR. U.S. v. Jovanni Pimentel. CCA 20150361. Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's Order issued September 15, 2016, is hereby granted. The Order denying the petition for grant of review issued September 15, 2016, is hereby vacated, and 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 COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE BURTON.

 

II.WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE BURTON DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

Hearings

 

No. 16-0301/AR. U.S. v. Luis G. Nieto. CCA 20150386.

No. 16-0678/CG. Thomas J. Randolph v. HV and the U.S. CCA 001-16.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Friday, October 7, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0008/AR. U.S. v. Matthew R. Strempler. CCA 20150527.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Filings

 

No. 17-0009/AF. Sebastian P. LaBella v. U.S. and U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram vobis or, in the alternative, writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis was filed this date.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0744/AR. U.S. v. Edward P. Touchette. CCA 20150439. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 26, 2016.

 

No. 16-0749/AR. U.S. v. Richard S. Carroll. CCA 20150049. Appellee's motion to extend time to file an answer to the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 7, 2016.

 

No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA 20140939. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 24, 2016.

 

No. 17-0005/AR. U.S. v. Donavon A. Scott. CCA 20150127. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 25, 2016.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Thursday, October 6, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0007/AF. U.S. v. Joe A. Garcia. CCA 38814.

 

Petitions for Grant of Review - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 16-0730/AR. U.S. v. David L. Benitez III. CCA 20150509. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is noted Appellant's pleas of guilty with respect to Specifications 1, 5, and 9 of Charge II are provident only with respect to one location, vice the two locations charged. Accordingly, in light of this error, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed, except for the words "and at or near Bolivia, North Carolina" in Specifications 1 and 9 of Charge II, and "at or near Oak Island, North Carolina and" in Specification 5 of Charge II. The finding of guilty as to those excepted words is set aside and the words are dismissed.

 

Orders Granting Petition for Review

 

No. 16-0732/AR. U.S. v. Kameron M. Coleman. CCA 20140709. 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 DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0005/AR. U.S. v. Donavon A. Scott. CCA 20150127.

 

Petitions for New Trial Filed

 

No. 17-0006/AR. U.S. v. Travis L. Gallegos. CCA 20130926.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Filed

 

No. 17-0001/AF. U.S. v. Rudy R. Ruiz. CCA 38752.

No. 17-0002/AR. U.S. v. Alvin J. Fogle. CCA 20140534.

No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA 20140939.

No. 17-0004/AR. U.S. v. Jason A. Maestre. CCA 20140549.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

Monday, October 3, 2016

 

Petitions for Grant of Review Denied

 

No. 16-0590/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas A.R. Marsh. CCA 38688.

 

Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions

 

No. 16-0728/AF. Sebastian P. LaBella, Appellant v. United States, and United States Air Force Court of Appeals, Appellees.CCA 37679. On consideration of Appellee's motion to dismiss writ-appeal petition as untimely filed under Rule 19(e), and Appellant's motion for leave to withdraw the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that Appellee's motion to dismiss the writ-appeal petition is hereby granted, and Appellant's motion for leave to withdraw the writ-appeal petition is hereby denied as moot.

 

Interlocutory Orders

 

No. 16-0424/MC. U.S. v. Mark J. Rosario. CCA 201500251. On consideration of Appellant's motion to supplement the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted. Appellee may file an answer to the additional supplement to the petition for grant of review on or before October 24, 2016.

 

No. 16-0555/AR. U.S. v. Jason M. Commisso. CCA 20140205. On consideration of Appellant's motion to enlarge the grant and vacate the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted as it pertains to enlarging the grant but denied as it pertains to vacating the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

 

No. 16-0669/NA. U.S. v. Mark A. Berger. CCA 201500024. On consideration of Appellant's motion to supplement the petition for grant of review and motion to withdraw reply to Appellee's opposition, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted. Appellee may file an answer to the additional supplement to the petition for grant of review on or before October 24, 2016.

 

No. 16-0680/AR. U.S. v. Shquon T. Hodge. CCA 20160056. On consideration of Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted. Appellee may file an answer to the supplement to the petition for grant of review on or before October 24, 2016.

 

No. 16-0696/AR. U.S. v. William G. Inman. CCA 20150042. On consideration of Appellant's motion to attach exhibits and motion to consider additional assignments of error out of time, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted. Appellee may file an answer to the additional assignments of error on or before November 7, 2016.

 

No. 16-0705/AR. U.S. v. Sean R. Erikson. CCA 20150130. 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. Appellee may file an answer to the Grostefon matters on or before October 24, 2016.

 

No. 16-0759/AR. U.S. v. Karina Flores-Santos. CCA 20140066. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 18, 2016.

 

No. 16-0762/AR. U.S. v. Tommie E. Crumedy. CCA 20140128. 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 October 20, 2016.

 

Petitions for Reconsideration Granted

 

No. 16-0635/AR. U.S. v. Laith G. Cox. CCA 20130923. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's Order issued September 7, 2016, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby granted, and 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 COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE BURTON.

 

II. WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE BURTON MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.

 

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

 

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.



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