YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2024 TERM > JANUARY 2025

United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
450 E Street, Northwest Washington D.C. 20442-0001

---

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Nikolas S. Casillas	No. 24-0089/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Samantha Marie Castanien, USAF
                                              ------------------- (brief) (reply brief)
                                              ----------------- (supplemental brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Kate Eyn Lee, USAF (brief)
                                              -------- (supplemental brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for sexual assault. Granted issues are: (1) Whether Article 120(b)(2) and (g)(7), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§920(b)(2) and (g)(7), are unconstitutionally vague because they fail to put defendants on fair notice of the specific charge against them; (2) As applied, whether Article 120(b)(2) and (g)(7), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920(b)(2) and (g)(7), gave Appellant constitutional fair notice when the military judge denied defense counsel's request for a tailored jury instruction; (3) whether Appellant's conviction for sexual assault without consent was legally sufficient; (4) in a sexual assault trial, did the military judge abuse his discretion when he denied the accused's challenge for actual and implied bias for a member whose wife had been raped; (5) 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 Staff Judge Advocate's indorsement to the entry of judgment; and (6) 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).

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Michael A. Valentin-Andino	No. 24-0208/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Trevor N. Ward, USAF (brief)
                                                 ------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Regina Henenlotter, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for sexual assault. Granted issues are: (1) whether "appropriate relief" for excessive post-trial delay under Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, also requires "meaningful relief"; and (2) whether the Air Force Court erred by failing to award "meaningful relief" despite finding that relief was warranted pursuant to Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, and United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002), for unreasonable post-trial delay.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Andrew J. Shafran	No. 24-0134/CG
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Benjamin M. Cook, JAGC, USN (brief)
                                               ------------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Elizabeth Ulan, JAGC, USN (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction for abusive sexual contact and providing alcohol to a minor. Granted issue asks: does the specification of Charge II, alleging a violation of Article 134, UCMJ (providing several alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21), fail to state an offense because it fails to allege words of criminality?

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Adalberto Brinkman-Coronel	No. 24-0159/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esq (brief) (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  CPT Anthony J. Scarpati, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for attempted sexual assault of a child, attempted sexual abuse of a child, AWOL, communicating indecent language, possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. Granted issues are: (1) whether the lower court erred in finding that the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he failed to recuse himself from Appellant's court-martial for the appearance of bias; and (2) whether the military judge abused his discretion when he denied the motion to suppress evidence discovered from the search of Appellant's "vacuum phone" and all derivative evidence.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Tuesday, January 28, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Ryan C. Thomas	No. 24-0147/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: MAJ Robert W. Rogriguez, USA
                                        --------------- (brief) (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  MAJ Marc Sawyer, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for cruelty and maltreatment, adultery, violation of a general regulation/prohibited relationship, and sexual abuse of a child. Granted issue questions whether the military judge erred by denying Appellant's Batson challenge.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Alex J. Secord	No. 24-0217/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Scott R. Hockenberry, Esq. (brief) (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  CPT Dominique L. Dove, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for use of cocaine and violation of a general regulation. Granted issues are: (1) where the government seized and held Appellant's phone pursuant to a narrow search authorization, but could not access the data without Appellant's passcode, was the data within the possession, custody, or control of military authorities for purposes of R.C.M. 701?; (2) Did the military judge err by ruling Appellant could not access the data without simultaneously providing the government with full access to all his personal data?; and (3) If the military judge erred, did the error constitute prejudicial error?

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Devin W. Johnson	No. 24-0004/SF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Samantha Castanien, USAF (brief)
                                               ------------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Tyler L. Washburn , USAF (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction for abusive sexual contact. Granted issues are: (1) 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; (2) 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 doctrines. See B.M. v. United States, 84 M.J. 314, 317 (C.A.A.F. 2024)(Detailing this Court's prudential case and controversy doctrines; and (3) 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.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Salvador Jacinto	No. 24-0144/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Jesse B. Neumann, JAGC, USN
                                               ------------------------------ (redacted brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Lan T. Nguyen, JAGC, USN (redacted brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae (redacted) -- Peter Coote

Case Summary: GCM conviction for rape of a child, sexual abuse of child, and child endangerment by culpable negligence. Granted issues are: (1) did the lower court fail to comply with this Court's remand order; and (2) did Appellant suffer prejudice from the military judge's erroneous continuance denial?

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.