Briefs of Granted Cases Without A Hearing Date


YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE
	BRIEFS OF GRANTED CASES WITHOUT A HEARING DATE (Last Updated 5/28/2025) In descending order, the following cases have been granted by this Court and ordered to file briefs. These cases have not yet been scheduled for hearings. Links to the briefs are provided soon after the briefs have been filed at this Court. Cases will be removed when a hearing date has been scheduled -- see Hearing Calendar -- or when another disposition has been published. See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings. Tuesday, May 27, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0177/AF. United States, Appellant v. John D. Kershaw, Appellee. CCA 40455. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this 27th day of May, 2025, on the following issue: WHERE TIME WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY FINDING FACTUAL INSUFFICIENCY BASED ON A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE DATES PLEADED AND THE DATES PROVED, WHEN THE COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED A VARIANCE ANALYSIS AND FOUND A NON-FATAL VARIANCE INSTEAD? Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Friday, May 9, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0114/AF. U.S. v. Ian J.B. Cadavona. CCA 40476. 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, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, 85 M.J. 121 (C.A.A.F. 2024), THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UCMJ, TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR THE ERRONEOUS FIREARM PROHIBITION ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. III. WHETHER REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WOULD SATISFY THIS COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DOCTRINE. IV. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief No reply brief Monday, May 5, 2025 Certificates for Review No. 25-0157/AF. U.S. v. Zachary C. Rocha. CCA 40134. 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 on date on the following issues: I. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FAIL TO FOLLOW THIS COURT'S REMAND INSTRUCTION BY ANALYZING THE PURPORTED LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), LIBERTY INTEREST AS "MASTURBATION IN SOLITUDE, IN SECRET, AND IN PRIVATE," INSTEAD OF "PRIVATELY ENGAG[ING] IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A CHILDLIKE SEX DOLL"? II. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR IN ITS APPLICATION OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) AND UNITED STATES V. MARCUM, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004) TO FIND APPELLEE'S CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT? Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief No. 25-0158/MC. U.S. v. Danielle E. Deremer. CCA 202300205. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues: I. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR HOLDING APPELLANT, AT AN INTERVIEW WHERE SHE WAIVED HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL, WAS ENTITLED TO 10 U.S.C. §1044E RIGHTS WHEN SHE WAS INTERVIEWED AS A SUSPECT? II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR FINDING THE INTERVIEW VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND FINDING THE STATEMENT INVOLUNTARY UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 304? III. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR HOLDING THAT SUPPRESSION IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR A VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C §1044E? IV. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY AFFIRMING APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR MALINGERING DESPITE HOLDING HER CONFESSION TO NCIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SURPRESSED? Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Wednesday, April 23, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0102/MC. U.S. v. Jonatan O. RosarioMartinez. CCA 202300154. 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 petition is granted on the following issue: DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR IN FINDING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE SENIOR MEMBER TO BE INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE UNDER MRE 606(b)(2)(C) AND IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE FINDINGS WORKSHEET? Supplement brief No reply brief Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Monday, April 21, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0140/AR. United States, Appellant v. Michael S. Malone, Jr., Appellee. CCA 20230151. Notice is 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 issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE MULTIPLICITY WHERE COUNSEL STATED DEFENSE HAD NO MOTIONS BEFORE ENTERING UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEAS AND DECLINED ADDITIONAL INQUIRY INTO MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE UNIT OF PROSECUTION. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 128b(1), UCMJ, FACIALLY DUPLICATIVE WHEN THE UNDERLYING "VIOLENT OFFENSES" WERE ASSAULT CONSUMMATED BY BATTERY AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Friday, April 11, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0106/AF. U.S. v. Jacques D. Benoit, Jr. CCA 40508. 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 granted on the following issue: AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief No reply brief Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0109/AF. U.S. v. Alex J. Mejia. CCA 40497. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief No reply brief Thursday, March 27, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0115/AF. U.S. v. Chanson A. Johnson. CCA S32782. 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 18 U.S.C. § 922 AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT. Supplement brief No reply brief Wednesday, March 26, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0044/AF. U.S. v. Jamal X. Washington. CCA 39761. On consideration of Appellant's 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE ORIGINAL MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE STRUCK A PORTION OF APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY. Supplement brief No reply brief Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Monday, March 24, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0120/AF. United States, Appellant. v. Isaac J. Serjak, Appellee. CCA 40392. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING UNITED STATES V. MENDOZA, _ M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2024), TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT. Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Friday, March 14, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0089/MC. U.S. v. Alvin Valencia. CCA 202300240. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF FACTUAL INSUFFICIENCY DID NOT TRIGGER A FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UCMJ. Supplement brief No reply brief Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Tuesday, March 11, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0112/AF. United States, Appellant v. William C.S. Hennessy, Appellee. CCA 40439. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING UNITED STATES V. MENDOZA, _ M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2024), TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT. Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Friday, March 7, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0110/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas J. Moore. CCA 40442. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING UNITED STATES V. MENDOZA, _ M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2024), TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT. Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Tuesday, March 4, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0083/AF. U.S. v. Maxwell A. Matthew. CCA 39796. 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 granted on the following issue: AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief No reply brief Friday, February 28, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0074/AF. U.S. v. Andrew V. Lawson. CCA 23034. 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 granted on the following issue: AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief No reply brief Thursday, February 20, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0063/AF. U.S. v. Mark A. Pulley. CCA 40438. 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 granted on the following issue: AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief No reply brief Wednesday, February 12, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0071/AF. U.S. v. Clint C. Scott. CCA 40369. 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: AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief No reply brief Tuesday, February 4, 2025 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0035/MC. U.S. v. Beto L. Valdez, Jr. CCA 202300141. 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 granted on the following issue: DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HER DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE UNSWORN VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT TO PROVIDE, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT TO WHICH APPELLANT HAD NOT PLEADED GUILTY? Supplement brief No reply brief No. 25-0046/AF. U.S. v. Zachary R. Braum. CCA 40434. 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 granted on the following issue: CAN THE GOVERNMENT PROPERLY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE RELEVANT, NON-PRIVILEGED DATA IN ITS POSSESSION, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL ON THE BASIS THAT THE WITNESS WHO PROVIDED THE DATA GAVE LIMITED CONSENT WITH RESPECT TO ITS USE? IF NOT, IS RELIEF WARRANTED? Supplement brief No reply brief Appellant's brief Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Monday, February 3, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0041/AR. U.S. v. Trenton W. Orr. CCA 20220547. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ORDERING THE SENTENCES OF CONFINEMENT TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY WHEN EACH SPECIFICATION INVOLVED THE SAME VICTIM AND THE SAME ACT OR TRANSACTION. Supplement brief No reply brief Tuesday, January 28, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0030/AF. U.S. v. Daniel L. Block. CCA 40466. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR THE ERRONEOUS FIREARM PROHIBITION ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. III. WHETHER REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WOULD SATISFY THIS COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DOCTRINES. IV. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief Answer brief Monday, January 27, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0006/AF. U.S. v. Dontavius A. Bates. CCA S32752. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR THE ERRONEOUS FIREARM PROHIBITION ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. III. WHETHER REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WOULD SATISFY THIS COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DOCTRINES. IV. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT. Supplement brief Answer brief Wednesday, January 8, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0235/AF. U.S. v. Kris A. Hollenback. CCA 40481. 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 AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UCMJ, FOR THE ERRONEOUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL FIREARM PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT COMPLETED AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. III. WHETHER REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WOULD SATISFY THE COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DECISIONS. Supplement brief Answer brief Reply brief Tuesday, December 17, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0229/AF. U.S. v. Carson C. Conway. CCA 40372. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY TO APPELLANT, WHO STANDS CONVICTED OF A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT BARRING HIS POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IS "CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" UNDER NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BRUEN, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Supplement brief Answer brief Reply brief Monday, December 16, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0011/AF. U.S. v. Zhuo H. Zhong. CCA 40441. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER A CONVICTION IS FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT. II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR INDECENT RECORDING IS FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT WHERE THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT PROVE THAT A VIDEO TAKEN ON THE CHARGED DATE DEPICTED A PRIVATE AREA OF T.M., AND APPELLANT HAD A REASONABLE MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT. III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE AMENDED FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ. IV. WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UCMJ, TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR THE ERRONEOUS FIREARM PROHIBITION ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. V. WHETHER THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. VI. WHETHER REVIEW BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WOULD SATISFY THIS COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DOCTRINES. VII. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief Answer brief Reply brief Tuesday, December 10, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0228/AF. U.S. v. Robert D. Schneider. CCA 40403. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS "CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" WHEN APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE. Supplement brief Answer brief Wednesday, December 4, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0012/AF. U.S. v. Makinnon A. Myers. CCA S32749. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER A CONVICTION IS FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT. II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR COMMUNICATING A THREAT IS FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT WHERE APPELLANT MADE A STATEMENT TO A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WHILE SEEKING MENTAL HEALTHCARE. III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE AMENDED FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ. Supplement brief No reply brief Tuesday, November 26, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0005/AF. U.S. v. Brandon A. Wood. CCA 40429. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UCMJ, TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE RELIEF FOR THE ERRONEOUS FIREARM PROHIBITION ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. III. WHETHER REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WOULD SATISFY THIS COURT'S PRUDENTIAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY DOCTRINES. IV. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL IN LIGHT OF RECENT PRECEDENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Supplement brief Answer brief Thursday, November 21, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0225/AF. U.S. v. Austin J. Van Velson. CCA 40401. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY TO APPELLANT, WHO STANDS CONVICTED OF NONVIOLENT OFFENSES, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT BARRING HIS POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IS "CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" UNDER NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BRUEN, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022). Supplement brief No reply brief Friday, November 8, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0184/AR. U.S. v. Trevon K. Coley. CCA 20220231. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE JUDICIAL REASSIGNMENT OF APPELANT'S CASE WARRANTS REVERSAL. Supplement brief No reply brief Appellant Supplemental brief Appellee Supplemental brief Tuesday, October 29, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0209/AF. U.S. v. Kaye P. Donley. CCA 40350. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT. Supplement brief No reply brief Thursday, October 17, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0182/AF. U.S. v. Tayari S. Vanzant. CCA 22004. On consideration of Appellant's 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW APPELLANT'S CASE. II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES AND THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVE JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE ERRONEOUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL FIREARM PROHIBITION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 922 NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S ENDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. Appellant's brief (Issue I only) Appellee's brief Appellant's reply brief Thursday, October 3, 2024 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0183/AF. U.S. v. Jennesis V. Dominguez-Garcia. CCA S32694. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THERE IS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT CORRECTION OF THE ERRONEOUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL FIREARM PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. Supplement brief No reply brief No. 24-0219/AF. U.S. v. Brian W. Gubicza. CCA 40464. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE THAT 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED OF A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE. Supplement brief No reply brief Thursday, September 12, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0189/AF. U.S. v. Logan A. McLeod. CCA 40374. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER A CONVICTION IS FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT. II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER OF "SARAH" AND ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACIES TO RAPE AND KIDNAP AB ARE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE AMENDED FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ. Supplement brief No reply brief Monday, July 8, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0106/AF. U.S. v. DeQuayjan D. Jackson. CCA 40310. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY "DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" WHEN SHE WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (QUOTING NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BRUEN, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022). Supplement brief No reply brief Thursday, June 13, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0122/AR. U.S. v. Matthew L. Coe. CCA 20220052. 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 granted on the following issue: WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BASED ON THE LOWER COURT'S STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 120(b)(2)(A). Supplement brief No reply brief Friday, April 26, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0101/AF. U.S. v. Keen A. Fernandez. CCA 40290. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY "DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" WHEN HE WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022)). Supplement brief No reply brief Amicus curiae brief--US Coast Guard Friday, March 29, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0111/AF. U.S. v. Matthew R. Denney. CCA 40360. 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY TO APPELLANT, WHO STANDS CONVICTED OF A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT BARRING HIS POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IS "CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" UNDER NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BRUEN, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2130 (2022). Supplement brief No reply brief Thursday, February 22, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0069/AF. U.S. v. Bradley D. Lampkins. CCA 40135. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY "DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" WHEN APPELLANT WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2130 (2022)). Supplement brief No reply brief Friday, February 16, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0049/AF. U.S. v. S'hun R. Maymi. CCA 40332. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. II. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROVE 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS CONSTITUTIONAL BY "DEMONSTRATING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" WHEN APPELLANT WAS NOT CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT OFFENSE. (quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2130 (2022)). Supplement brief No reply brief
	United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces • 450 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20442-0001 (202) 761-1448 / DSN 763-1448 • (202) 761-4672 fax