New Grants and Summary Dispositions


YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > GRANTS AND DISPOSITIONS
	NEW GRANTS AND SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS (Last Updated 5/13/25) Cases that have been decided will be removed from this page at the end of the term. See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings. Subscribe to this feed for updates on new grants and dispositions. Some browsers may need an add-on extension to read rss feeds. Here are the extension links for Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome. Copy link from the above feed icon and paste to rss reader extension to subscribe to the feed. Monday, May 12, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions No. 24-0179/AR. In re David J. Rudometkin. CCA 20180058. On consideration of Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and reconsideration, dated March 23, 2025, it is noted that Petitioner has submitted multiple filings with this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the lower court over the last year seeking direct and collateral review of his general court-martial, to no avail. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for a writ of mandamus and reconsideration is denied, and that barring extraordinary circumstances, further filings with this Court will be viewed with disfavor. No. 25-0093/AR. In re David J. Rudometkin. CCA 20180058. On consideration of Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and reconsideration, dated March 23, 2025, it is noted that Petitioner has submitted multiple filings with this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the lower court over the last year seeking direct and collateral review of his general court-martial, to no avail. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for a writ of mandamus and reconsideration is denied, and that barring extraordinary circumstances, further filings with this Court will be viewed with disfavor. No. 25-0104/AR. In re David J. Rudometkin. CCA 20180058. On consideration of Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and reconsideration, dated March 23, 2025, it is noted that Petitioner has submitted multiple filings with this Court, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the lower court over the last year seeking direct and collateral review of his general court-martial, to no avail. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for a writ of mandamus and reconsideration is denied, and that barring extraordinary circumstances, further filings with this Court will be viewed with disfavor. No. 25-0155/AR. U.S. v. Anderson Wallace, Jr. CCA 20250089. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus which this Court construes as a writ-appeal petition of the underlying decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, it is ordered that the petition is denied. Petition for Reconsideration Granted No. 24-0134/CG. U.S. v. Andrew J. Shafran. CCA 1480. On consideration of Appellant's petition for reconsideration of the decision issued by the Court, __ MJ. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), it is ordered that the petition for reconsideration is hereby granted; that the Court's opinion and judgment are vacated; and that a new decision will be issued by the Court contemporaneously with this order. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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 will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 4th day of June, 2025. 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 will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 4th day of June, 2025. Monday, April 28, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions No. 25-0121/AF. D.D., Appellant v. United States, Appellee and Amn Trevon J. Williams, Real Party in Interest. CCA 2025-02. On consideration of the writ appeal petition, Appellant's motions to supplement the record, to attach document, and to stay proceedings and the Real Party in Interest's motion to dismiss the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that Appellant's motions to supplement the record, to attach document, and to stay proceedings are hereby denied; that the Real Party in Interest's motion to dismiss the writ-appeal petition is granted; and that the writ-appeal petition is dismissed. No. 25-0133/AF. U.S. v. Jose A. Cossio, Jr. CCA 2021-04. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis or, in the alternative writ of mandamus, it is ordered that the petition is hereby denied. 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? Appellant will file a brief on or before May 14, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Monday, April 21, 2025 Certificates 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 will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 21st day of May, 2025. No. 25-0141/AR. United States, Appellant v. Xzavior D. Jones, Appellee. CCA 20230382. 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 accompanied by a motion for suspended briefing on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE MULTIPLICITY WHERE COUNSEL STATED NO MOTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE MILITARY JUDGE AFTER ENTERING UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEAS. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 128(a) and 128(b), UCMJ, FACIALLY DUPLICATIVE. The accompanying motion for suspended briefing is granted. No. 25-0142/AR. United States, Appellant v. Jesus D. Calvillomagana. Appellee. CCA 20230161. 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 accompanied by a motion for suspended briefing on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE MULTIPLICITY WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL ONLY PRESERVED AN ARTICLE 13 MOTION PRIOR TO ENTERING AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA AND AFTER THE MILITARY JUDGE ADVISED HIM THAT ANY OTHER MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR GRANT OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF SHOULD BE MADE. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 128(a), UCMJ, MULTIPLICIOUS. The accompanying motion for suspended briefing is granted. No. 25-0143/AR. United States, Appellant v. Patrick A. Ford, Appellee. CCA 20230263. 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 accompanied by a motion for suspended briefing 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. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 128b(1), UCMJ, MULTIPLICIOUS WHEN THE UNDERLYING "VIOLENT OFFENSES" WERE ASSAULTS CONSUMMATED BY BATTERY. The accompanying motion for suspended briefing is granted. Thursday, April 17, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0122/AF. In re Brian W. Alton. CCA 40215. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Wednesday, April 16, 2025 Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition No. 25-0085/AR. U.S. v. Travis M. Alfred. CCA 20220126. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), the Court notes and decides the following: 1. Appendix 2 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 edition), does not accurately reprint the official text of Article 69(c)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 869(c)(2) (2018). 2. Part II of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), does not accurately reprint the text of Rule for Courts- Martial 1201(h) as amended in the 2023 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Exec. Order No. 14103, Annex 1 § 1(xx), 88 Fed. Reg. 50569 (Aug. 2, 2023). 3. This Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ, because this is not a "case reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals." The case was not reviewed by the ACCA because the ACCA denied review. 4. This Court decides that the ACCA's denial of review was proper, although not necessarily for the reason stated by the ACCA. Appellant contends that the Judge Advocate General forwarded this case to the ACCA pursuant to Article 69(c)(2), UCMJ. The official text of Article 69(c)(2), UCMJ, however, does not authorize the Judge Advocate General to review a failure to file an appeal. Accordingly, it is ordered that petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Tuesday, April 15, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0125/AR. Travis C. Bates, Appellant v. Christopher S. Sexton, LTC, U.S. Army, Staff Judge Advocate, 7^th INF. DIV. JB Lewis-McChord and United States, Appellees. CCA 20250106. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief, it is ordered that the writ-appeal petition is denied. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F.R. 25. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Thursday, March 27, 2025 Appeal - Summary Disposition No. 25-0035/MC. U.S. v. Beto L. Valdez, Jr. CCA 202300141. On consideration of the one issue granted by this Court, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), and in light of United States v. Campos, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), it is ordered that the granted issue is answered in the affirmative; that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to the findings, but set aside as to the sentence; and, that the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court to reassess the sentence or to order a sentence rehearing. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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. On or before April 16, 2025, Appellant will file a brief, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer 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 will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 23rd day of April, 2025. Interlocutory Orders No. 24-0184/AR. U.S. v. Trevon K. Coley. CCA 20220231. On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), and in view of United States v. Davis, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), it is ordered that counsel for the parties shall file briefs discussing the effect of United States v. Davis, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2025), on the granted issue. The briefs of the parties shall be filed concurrently within 30 days of the date of this order. No. 25-0043/AF. U.S. v. Douglas M. Folts. CCA 40322. On consideration of the granted issues, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), it is ordered that counsel for the parties shall concurrently file briefs on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW APPELLANT'S CASE. Briefs shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. Friday, March 14, 2025 Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition No. 25-0079/AR. U.S. v. Anderson A. Antepara. CCA 20220562. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and in light of United States v. Mendoza, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHOUT CONSENT WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for a new factual and legal sufficiency review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2018). Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions No. 25-0090/AR. In re David J. Rudometkin, Petitioner. CCA 20180058. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that the petition is denied. No. 25-0093/AR. In re David J. Rudometkin, Petitioner. CCA 20180058. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that the petition is denied. No. 25-0103/AR. In re David J. Rudometkin, Petitioner. CCA 20180058. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of prohibition, it is ordered that the petition is denied. No. 25-0104/AR. In re David J. Rudometkin, Petitioner. CCA 20180058. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of prohibition, it is ordered that the petition is denied. 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. Appellant will file a brief on or before April 4, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Wednesday, March 12, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0108/AR. In re Anderson Wallace, Jr., Petitioner. CCA 8903187. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, and Petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition, it is ordered that the motion to withdraw the petition is granted, and the petition is dismissed as moot. 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 will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 10th day of April, 2025. 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 will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 9th day of April, 2025. Wednesday, March 5, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0043/AF. U.S. v. Douglas M. Folts. CCA 40322. 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 LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW APPELLANT'S CASE. II. AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A PERMANENT BAR ON HIS POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Friday, February 21, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0047/AR. Travis M. Alfred, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent. CCA 20220126. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, and the motion to attach Respondent's exhibits 1, 2, 3, & 4, it is ordered that the motion is granted, and the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Thursday, February 20, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Dispositions No. 25-0087/AR. In re Rene G. Fuentes, Petitioner. CCA 20170390. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, it is ordered that the petition is denied. No. 25-0091/AF. In re Isaac J. Serjak, Petitioner. CCA 40392. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that the petition is denied. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Wednesday, February 12, 2025 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0025/AR. U.S. v. Brandon Z. Miller. CCA 20230026. 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 TOTAL CLOSURE OF THE COURT OVER APPELLANT'S OBJECTION VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL. Appellant will file a brief on or before March 5, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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? No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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? Appellant will file a brief on or before February 25, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Wednesday, January 29, 2025 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0221/AF. U.S. v. Jakalien J. Cook. CCA 40333. 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 APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS FOR TRANSPORTING ALIENS AND CONSPIRING TO TRANSPORT ALIENS ARE FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT. II. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE AMENDED FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ. III. WHETHER AN APPELLANT CAN WAIVE THE MILITARY JUDGE'S INCORRECT MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT CALCULATION THAT TRIPLED APPELLANT'S PUNITIVE EXPOSURE. IV. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN CALCULATING THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGALLY TRANSPORTING ALIENS AS A VIOLATION OF 8 U.S.C. §1342. On or before February 19, 2025, Appellant will file a brief on Issues III and IV only, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. No. 25-0032/AR. U.S. v. Jonny Gonzalez. CCA 20230632. 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 HAD FAIR NOTICE THAT THE PORTIONS OF SPECIFICATION 2 OF THE CHARGE ALLEGING AN ARTICLE 133 VIOLATION FOR AN EXTRAMARITAL KISS CONSTITUTED CONDUCT THAT WAS FORBIDDEN AND SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTION. Appellant will file a brief on or before February 19, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Tuesday, January 21, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0019/AR. U.S. v. Oscar A. Batres. CCA 20220223. 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 OFFENSES INVOLVED THE SAME VICTIM AND THE SAME TRANSACTION UNDER RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 1002(d)(2)(B)(i) SUCH THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ORDERING APPELLANT'S SEGMENTED SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY. Appellant will file a brief on or before February 11, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Thursday, January 16, 2025 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0069/AR. Matthew E. Davis, Petitioner v. Colonel Douglas Curtis, Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Respondent. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of habeas corpus, and Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel, it is ordered that the petition for extraordinary relief is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the motion for the appointment of counsel is denied as moot. Monday, January 13, 2025 Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition No. 25-0018/AF. U.S. v. Corey M. Vargo. CCA 40653. On consideration of Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that the motion granted, and the petition for grant of review is dismissed. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Monday, January 6, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0073/AF. U.S. v. Joshua A. Patterson. CCA 40426. 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 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 IT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED A VARIANCE ANALYSIS AND FOUND A NON-FATAL VARIANCE INSTEAD? Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 29^th day of January, 2025. Monday, December 30, 2024 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0057/AR. In re Kevin P. Newton, Petitioner. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief, it is ordered that the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0024/AR. U.S. v. Nathan G. Leese. CCA 20230250. 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 AND THE ARMY COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED UNITED STATES v. PIERCE, 27 M.J. 367 (C.M.A. 1989) IN AWARDING CREDIT FOR APPELLANT'S TWO PRIOR INSTANCES OF NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT TO A SEGMENTED SENTENCE. Appellant will file a brief on or before January 21, 2025; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer 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). No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Monday, December 16, 2024 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0226/CG. U.S. v. Eliud I. Lopez. CCA 1487. 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 granted on the following issues: I. WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES EVALUATES A DECISION OF A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ON A REQUEST FOR APPELLATE DISCOVERY? II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT MOSTLY DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTIONS FOR APPELLATE DISCOVERY REGARDING HIS ILLEGAL POST-TRIAL CONFINEMENT, AFTER WHICH IT FOUND "SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN NEGLIGENCE" REGARDING ITS CAUSE? III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING BACKPAY FOR APPELLANT'S ILLEGAL POST-TRIAL CONFINEMENT. Appellant will file a brief on or before January 8, 2025; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Tuesday, December 3, 2024 Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition No. 25-0010/AR. U.S. v. Anderson A. Antepara. CCA 20220562. On consideration of Appellee's motion to dismiss Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that a petition for reconsideration is pending at that court. Under these circumstances, the record may be returned to the court below so that it may complete its review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866 (Supp. III 2019-2022). Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice to Appellant raising the matter asserted during the course of normal appellate review, the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals for completion of its review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (Supp. III 2019-2022). 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Petition for Reconsideration Granted No. 23-0207/AF. U.S. v. Samuel H. Smith. CCA 40202. On consideration of Appellee's petition for reconsideration of the decision issued by the Court, __ MJ. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is granted, that the Court's opinion and judgment are vacated, and that a new decision will be issued by the Court contemporaneously with this order. Monday, November 25, 2024 Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition No. 25-0003/NA. U.S. v. Roneisha L. Redmond. CCA 202300130. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of United States v. Harvey, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), it is ordered that the petition is granted on the following issue: DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN CONDUCTING ITS FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, WHEN IT APPLIED ITS INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATUTE THAT THIS COURT OVERRULED IN UNITED STATES v. HARVEY, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024)? The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals for a new factual sufficiency review, consistent with Harvey under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (Supp. III 2019-2022). Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0031/AF. Myles L. Phipps, Appellant v. United States, Appellee. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, and Appellant's motion to stay the proceedings, it is ordered that the motion is denied, and the writ-appeal petition is denied without prejudice to raising the issue asserted during the course of normal appellate review. Friday, November 22, 2024 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 25-0026/AR. In re Konner L. Ruhrup. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of mandamus, it is ordered that the petition is denied. 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). No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Wednesday, November 20, 2024 Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition No. 24-0233/MC. U.S. v. Jaden T. Rohlfs. CCA 202300019. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of United States v. Harvey, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), it is, ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN CONDUCTING ITS FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66(b)(3), UCMJ, WHEN IT APPLIED ITS INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATUTE THAT THIS COURT OVERRULED IN UNITED STATES v. HARVEY, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024)? The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals for a new factual sufficiency review, consistent with Harvey under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866 (Supp. III 2019-2022). Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0234/AF. U.S. v. James L. Taylor, Jr. CCA 40371. 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: ARTICLE 2(d)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 802(d)(2), SETS FORTH THE AUTHORITY TO INVOLUNTARILY ORDER MEMBERS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS TO ACTIVE DUTY FOR TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY USING THE ABSURDITY DOCTRINE TO INTERPRET THIS PROVISION IN A MANNER THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS MEANING OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE? On or before December 11, 2024, Appellant will file a brief; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Wednesday, November 13, 2024 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 24-0238/AF. In re Jeg E.R. Libed. CCA S32719. On further consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Friday, November 8, 2024 Orders 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. No. 25-0004/MC. U.S. v. Joseph D. Suarez. CCA 202300049. 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 issues: I. DID UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE AFFECT APPELLANT'S COURT-MARTIAL? II. WAS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE PREJUDICIAL? III. DID APPELLANT WAIVE REVIEW OF THE QUESTION WHETHER UNLAWFUL INFLUENCE AFFECTED HIS COURT-MARTIAL? Appellant will file a brief on or before December 2, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Tuesday, October 29, 2024 Appeal - Summary Disposition No. 24-0122/AR. U.S. v. Matthew L. Coe. CCA 20220052. On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), and in light of United States v. Mendoza, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army for remand to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals for a new review under Article 66, 10 U.S.C. § 866, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Supp. III 2019- 2022). 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Interlocutory Order No. 24-0089/AF. U.S. v. Nikolas S. Casillas. CCA 40302. On further consideration of the briefs of the parties on the granted issues, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), it is ordered that counsel for the parties shall file supplemental briefs discussing the effect of United States v. Mendoza, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024) on Issues I, II, and III. The briefs of the parties shall be filed concurrently within 30 days of the date of this order. Thursday, October 24, 2024 Appeal - Summary Disposition No. 23-0224/AF. U.S. v. Charles S. Nestor. CCA 40250. On further consideration of the granted issue, 84 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2023), and in view of United States v. Wells, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2024), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. Tuesday, October 22, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0158/MC. U.S. v. Dominic L. Ruiz. CCA 202300007. 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 MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN ADMITTING THE COMPLAINING WITNESS'S STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT UNDER M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). Appellant will file a brief on or before November 12, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Monday, October 21, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0146/AF. U.S. v. Leo J. Navarro Aguirre. CCA 40352. 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 hereby granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR WRONGFUL AMBIEN USE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT WHEN: (1) HE HAD A VALID PRESCRIPTION FOR AMBIEN, AND (2) THE BASIS FOR HIS CONVICTION WAS A MEDICALLY-KNOWN SIDE EFFECT. II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA FOR RECKLESS DRIVING WAS PROVIDENT WHEN HE TOOK HIS PRESCRIBED DOSE OF AMBIEN, FELL ASLEEP IN HIS BED, AND "THE NEXT THING [HE] REMEMBERED IS BEING BEHIND THE WHEEL OF [HIS] CAR." On or before November 12, 2024, Appellant will file a brief, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer 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. On or before November 7, 2024, Appellant will file a brief on Issue I only, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Wednesday, October 16, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0217/AR. U.S. v. Alex J. Secord. CCA 20210667. 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 issues: I. 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? II. 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? III. IF THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED, DID THE ERROR CONSTITUTE PREJUDICIAL ERROR? Appellant will file a brief on or before November 6, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Monday, October 7, 2024 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0159/AR. U.S. v. Adalberto Brinkman-Coronel. CCA 20220225. On consideration of Appellant's 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 issues: I. 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. II. 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. On or before October 28, 2024, Appellant will file a brief, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. No. 24-0212/AF. U.S. v. Monica R. Arroyo. CCA 40321. 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: DURING ITS SENTENCE SEVERITY ANALYSIS, THE AIR FORCE COURT CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT ENJOYED BY APPELLANT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DISMISSED SPECIFICATIONS. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT ERR? On or before October 28, 2024, Appellant will file a brief, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Thursday, October 3, 2024 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 24-0168/AR. In re Kevin P. Newton, Petitioner. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of mandamus, it is ordered that the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Wednesday, October 2, 2024 Interlocutory Order No. 24-0144/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. On consideration of a motion for reconsideration of this Court's order granting Appellant's motion to view and copy sealed documents, a motion for a written explanation of the denial of a motion to reject Appellant's motion to view and copy, and a motion to reject Appellant's brief due to lack of service, all filed by Mr. Peter Coote, Esq., representing E.B., the victim in this case, the Court notes the following: 1. The recently amended Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Court clearly state that absent any statutory authority, victims and complainants are not recognized as parties before this Court. C.A.A.F. R. 8(c). 2. However, "the Court may afford either a victim or a complainant, whether represented by counsel or not, the rights of service of a party and the right to file an amicus curiae brief." C.A.A.F. R. 8(c). 3. Victims and complainants may move for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. C.A.A.F. R. 26(b). 4. Copies of all filings in this Court must be served on all counsel of record, to include victim or complainant's counsel and amicus curiae counsel, who entered an appearance at the Court of Criminal Appeals. C.A.A.F. R. 39(a). 5. There is no statutory, regulatory, or judicial authority that provides for a victim or complainant in a court-martial to intervene as a non-party in a case filed in this Court. 6. On August 15, 2024, Mr. Coote filed a formal notice of appearance in this Court on behalf of E.B., which filing was accepted on August 29, 2024. 7. On August 29, 2024, this Court granted Appellant's motions to view and copy sealed material, to file a brief under seal, and to file the joint appendix under seal. 8. Also on August 29, 2024, this Court denied Mr. Coote's motion to reject Appellant's motion to view and copy sealed material, without prejudice to filing a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. 9. On September 16, 2024, Appellant filed his brief under seal. In doing so, he failed to serve Mr. Coote with a copy of the brief. Having considered all of the above, we conclude that E.B. is not a party to this case and may not intervene in this case. However, this Court has accepted Mr. Coote's notice of appearance and Mr. Coote is deemed a counsel of record. Therefore, Mr. Coote is entitled to be served with a copy of all filings in this case, including briefs of the parties. Accordingly, it is ordered that Mr. Coote's motions for: (1) reconsideration of this Court's order granting Appellant's motion to view and copy sealed documents, (2) a written explanation of the denial of a motion to reject Appellant's motion to view and copy, and (3) a motion to reject Appellant's brief due to lack of service are hereby denied; that Appellant and Appellee will serve Mr. Coote with copies of their briefs and all other filings; and that Mr. Coote is granted leave to file an amicus curiae brief, all in accordance with the recently amended Rules of this Court. Monday, September 30, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0208/AF. U.S. v. Michael A. Valentin-Andino. CCA 40185. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of Appellant's allegations that the Court of Criminal Appeals provided meaningless relief for unreasonable post-trial delay, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER "APPROPRIATE RELIEF" FOR EXCESSIVE POST-TRIAL DELAY UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(2), UCMJ, ALSO REQUIRES "MEANINGFUL RELIEF". II. 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. On or before October 30, 2024, Appellant will file a brief, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Friday, September 27, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0196/NA. U.S. v. Edmond A. Maebane III. CCA 202200228. 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: DOES AN ACCUSED HAVE A SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A RECORDED THIRD PARTY'S CONFESSION TO THE CRIME FOR WHICH THE ACCUSED IS ON TRIAL? Appellant will file a brief on or before October 28, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0004/SF. U.S. v. Devin W. Johnson. CCA 40257. On further consideration of the granted issues, 84 M.J. 343 (C.A.A.F. 2024), and in view of United States v. Williams, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Sept. 5, 2024), it is ordered that the grant of review of issues in the Court's order of March 29, 2024, is vacated, and said petition is granted on the following issues: I. 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. II. 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). III. 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. On or before October 24, 2024, Appellant will file a brief on Issues I and II only, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Friday, September 20, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0134/CG. U.S. v. Andrew J. Shafran. CCA 1480. 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 granted on the following issue: 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? Appellant will file a brief on or before October 21, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Thursday, September 19, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0104/AF. U.S. v. Bryce T. Roan. CCA 22033. 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 LOWER COURT'S ERRONEOUS RESOLUTION OF A QUESTION OF LAW -- FINDING THAT WITHHELD EVIDENCE WAS IMMATERIAL AND THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE TO APPELLANT -- VIOLATED BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). II. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S ERRONEOUS RESOLUTION OF A QUESTION OF LAW -- FINDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 701(A)(6) -- VIOLATED BINDING PRECEDENT SET BY THIS COURT. Appellant will file a brief on or before October 21, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer 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. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25 Wednesday, September 11, 2024 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0147/AR. U.S. v. Ryan C. Thomas. CCA 20210662. 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 DENYING APPELLANT'S BATSON CHALLENGE. Appellant will file a brief on or before October 11, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. No. 24-0175/AF. U.S. v. Daniel R. Csiti. CCA 40386. 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 SEXUAL ASSAULT IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE AH WAS CAPABLE OF CONSENTING – AND DID CONSENT – TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH APPELLANT. III. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE AMENDED FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY STANDARD UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ. Appellant will file a brief on or before October 11, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Wednesday, September 4, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0186/MC. U.S. v. Kyle A. Shelby. CCA 202200213. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2018), it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR WHEN HE DISMISSED CHARGE II WITH PREJUDICE AFTER "CONSIDERING THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, THE ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, AND THE CUMULATIVE ERROR" OF THE GOVERNMENT? Pursuant to C.A.A.F. R. 19(a)(7)(A), no further pleadings will be filed. Tuesday, September 3, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0206/AF. U.S. v. Dennis A. George, Jr. CCA 40397. 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 APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ASSAULT WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT PROVE THE ALLEGED OVERT ACT. II. 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. III. 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. On or before 3 October 2024, Appellant will file a brief on Issue I only, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Thursday, August 29, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0172/AR. U.S. v. Rodrigo L. Urieta. CCA 20220432. 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 ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST A MEMBER WHO BELIEVED A SOLDIER WHO HIRED A CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIS DEFENSE. Appellant will file a brief on or before September 30, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Tuesday, August 27, 2024 Interlocutory Order No. 24-0156/AR. United States, Appellant v. Ross E. Downum, Appellee. CCA 20220575. On consideration of Appellant's motion to amend its certificate for review, Appellant's motion to supplement the record, and Appellee's motion for appellate discovery, the Court notes the following: 1. Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2) (2018), directs this Court to review the record in "all cases reviewed by a Court of Criminal Appeals which the Judge Advocate General, after appropriate notification to the other Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, orders sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review." (Emphasis added.) Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1204(a)(2) implements Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, with the same requirement of "appropriate notification." 2. On April 30, 2024, according to representations that neither party disputes, the Chief of the Government Appellate Division, U.S. Army, sent a notice to the chiefs of the government appellate divisions of the other services informing them of the Army Judge Advocate General's intent to certify three issues to this Court pursuant to Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ. 3. On May 13, 2024, the Army Judge Advocate General signed a certificate for review in this Court requesting review of these issues. The certificate for review included the following statement: "Pursuant to Article 67(a)(2) the other Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps were notified of my consideration to certify the issues." 4. On May 15, 2024, again according to representations that neither party contests, Appellant learned that the service leadership of two services had not acquired actual knowledge of the certified issues as of May 13, 2024, the date on which the Army Judge Advocate General had signed the certificate for review. All the Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps had been directly notified, and thus acquired actual knowledge, of the certified issues by May 20, 2024. 5. On May 22, 2024, Appellant moved to file an amended certificate for review. The text of the proffered amended certificate for review is identical to the certificate for review filed on May 13, 2024, but indicates that it was signed by the Judge Advocate General of the Army on May 20, 2024. 6. On May 28, 2024, Appellee filed an answer opposing Appellant's motion to amend the certificate for review and proposed further inquiry into whether the prerequisites for jurisdiction under Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, had been met. On May 31, 2024, Appellant filed a reply to this answer in which it asserted that the prerequisites for jurisdiction had been met. 7. On June 14, 2024, this Court ordered supplemental briefing on several specified issues, including: "Are the requirements of 'appropriate notification' in Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2) (2018) and Rule for Courts-Martial 1204(a)(2), satisfied by routing notification to the Government Appellate Division Chief of each respective service?" 8. Appellant argued in its supplemental brief that it had provided appropriate notification, asserting that sending notice through appropriate personnel satisfies the requirement of notifying the Judge Advocates General of the other services and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Appellee argued in his supplemental brief that notice to the chiefs of the government appellate divisions of the other services was not "appropriate notice" because these chiefs "are not part of the offices of the judge advocates general." Appellee therefore requested this Court to dismiss the appeal. Having received the supplemental briefing and considered these procedural steps, this Court reaches the following conclusions: Appellee has not filed a separate motion to dismiss the certificate for review for lack of jurisdiction but has merely asked for that remedy in his pleadings. Ordinarily, motions must be filed separately before this Court and cannot be incorporated into other pleadings. C.A.A.F. R. 30(d). This Court, however, has an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction even if the issue is not properly raised by the parties. M.W. v. United States, 83 M.J. 361, 363 (C.A.A.F. 2023) (citing Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). The Court therefore considers Appellee's request to dismiss the appeal in conjunction with our review of Appellant's motion to amend. Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, and R.C.M. 1204(a)(2) require a Judge Advocate General seeking to certify issues to this Court to provide "appropriate notification to" the senior leaders of the other services. The Court cannot equate "notification to" with "actual knowledge of" because these are well-recognized as distinct legal concepts. Compare Notification, Black's Law Dictionary 1280 (11th ed. 2019), with Knowledge, id. at 1043. In addition, if a requirement of actual knowledge of the certified issues were required, the qualifier "appropriate" would be rendered superfluous. The Court therefore interprets the phrase "appropriate notification to" simply to mean that the text of the proposed certified issues must be sent to addresses or through personnel that are appropriate for contacting the senior leaders of each of the other services. In this case, Appellee argues that the notices were not sent to appropriate addresses or personnel when they were sent to the chiefs of the government appellate divisions of the other services. Appellee, however, has cited no statute, rule, or regulation requiring notification to be sent to a different address. Appellee has also cited nothing to indicate that the Judge Advocates General of the other services or the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps desired the Army Judge Advocate General to send notice to a different location. Accordingly, the Court has no basis for concluding that the notification in this case was not appropriate. The Court therefore rejects Appellee's request that the Court dismiss the certificate for review. The Court further has no need to address the other specified issues. And because the initial certificate for review correctly stated that appropriate notification had been sent, the Court also perceives no need for amending the certificate for review. Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellee's request to dismiss the appeal is denied, that Appellant's motion to file an amended certificate for review is denied, and Appellant's motion to supplement the record and Appellee's motion for appellate discovery are denied as moot. Thursday, August 15, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0138/MC. U.S. v. Juan I. Campos. CCA 202200246. 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 HIS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING, OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, ALLEGATIONS OF ADDITIONAL MISCONDUCT IN THE UNSWORN VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT? Appellant will file a brief on or before September 16, 2024; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Friday, July 19, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0144/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. 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 issues: I. DID THE LOWER COURT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S REMAND ORDER? II. DID APPELLANT SUFFER PREJUDICE FROM THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ERRONEOUS CONTINUANCE DENIAL? Appellant will file a brief on or before August 19, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Thursday, July 18, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0124/NA. United States, Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Jeremy W. Harborth, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. CCA 202200157. On consideration of Appellant/Cross-Appellee's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Judge Advocate General's Certificate for Review, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: WAS THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE BY NOT SEEKING SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF CHIEF HARBORTH'S PROPERTY? Appellant/Cross-Appellee will file a brief on or before August 19, 2024, which shall address all of the issues included in the Certificate as well as the granted issue, and that Appellee/Cross-Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellant/Cross-Appellee's brief. [related case: U.S. v. Harborth, 24-0125/NA, certificate for review, 29 March 2024] 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). No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. Friday, June 14, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0089/AF. U.S. v. Nikolas S. Casillas. CCA 40302. 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 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. II. 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. III. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHOUT CONSENT WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. IV. 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. V. 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. VI. 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)). On or before 15 July 2024, Appellant will file a brief on Issues I through IV only; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Interlocutory Order No. 24-0156/AR. U.S. v. Ross E. Downum. CCA 20220575. On consideration of Appellant's motion to amend the certificate for review, Appellee's answer, and Appellant's reply, it is ordered that Appellant shall, within 14 days of the date of this order, file a supplemental brief addressing the following issues specified by the Court: (1) Are the requirements of "appropriate notification" in Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2) (2018) and Rule for Courts-Martial 1204(a)(2), satisfied by routing notification to the Government Appellate Division Chief of each respective service? (2) How may the Judge Advocate General demonstrate compliance with the notification requirements? (3) Is non-compliance with the notification requirements a jurisdictional error? (4) If non-compliance with the notification requirements is not a jurisdictional error, what are the consequences of non-compliance? Appellee will file a supplemental answer within 14 days after the filing of Appellant's supplemental brief. Appellant may file a supplemental reply within 3 days after the filing of Appellant's supplemental answer. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no extensions of time will be granted. 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). No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. Thursday, June 6, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0098/AF. U.S. v. Thomas M. Saul. CCA 40341. 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 A GUILTY PLEA FOR WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 109, UCMJ, CAN BE PROVIDENT WHEN APPELLANT THRICE TOLD THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT HE "DID NOT INTEND TO DAMAGE THE [PROPERTY]" AND THAT HE WAS SURPRISED THERE WAS ACTUAL DAMAGE. II. 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. III. 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 REGULATIONS" 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)). On or before July 8, 2024, Appellant will file a brief on Issue I only; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Wednesday, May 15, 2024 Certificate for Review No. 24-0156/AR. U.S. v. Ross E. Downum. CCA 20220575. 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 CONDUCTING ITS LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS WHEN IT HELD THAT UNITED STATES V. CAMPBELL, 50 M.J. 154, 160 (C.A.A.F. 1999), REQUIRES NOT ONLY EXPERT TESTIMONY INTERPRETING URINALYSIS RESULTS BUT THE ADMISSION OF THE UNDERLYING PAPER URINALYSIS RESULTS AS WELL. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT UNOBJECTED TO EXPERT TESTIMONY INTERPRETING THE URINALYSIS RESULTS LACKED RELEVANCE WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF THE PAPER URINALYSIS RESULTS. III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY ANALYSIS UNDER ARTICLE 66(d)(1)(B). Tuesday, May 14, 2024 Certificate for Review No. 24-0152/AR. United States, Appellant, v. Tayron D. Davis, Appellee. CCA 20220272. 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 THE REASSIGNMENT OF APPELLANT'S CASE RESULTED IN STRUCTURAL ERROR. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE REASSIGNMENT OF APPELLANT'S CASE RESULTED IN PREJUDICE AND THUS DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Tuesday, May 7, 2024 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0096/AF. U.S. v. Jaquan Q. Greene-Watson. CCA 40293. 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 AIR FORCE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DECISION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OCCURRING 17 MONTHS AFTER THE CHARGED OFFENSE TO SHOW A COMMON SCHEME OR PLAN UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 404(b)—USING A DIFFERENT RATIONALE THAN THE MILITARY JUDGE. Appellant will file a brief on or before June 7, 2024, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. No. 24-0130/AF. U.S. v. Chase J. Stanford. CCA 40327. 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. 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). 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)). No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. Friday, March 29, 2024 Certificate for Review No. 24-0125/NA. U.S. v. Jeremy W. Harborth. CCA 202200157. Notice is hereby 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 the following issues: I. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY (1) FINDING THE WARRANTLESS SEIZURE OF APPELLEE'S ELECTRONIC DEVICES WAS JUSTIFIED BY PROBABLE CAUSE, AND (2) NOT RULING ON LAW ENFORCEMENT'S RELIANCE ON ACTUAL AND APPARENT AUTHORITY? II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN RULING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD NOT RELY ON ACTUAL OR APPARENT AUTHORITY AND BY HOLDING THE DELAY IN SECURING A SEARCH AUTHORIZATION WAS UNREASONABLE, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE APPELLEE'S CONVICTIONS? III. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIND THAT APPELLEE WAIVED OBJECTION TO THE DURATION OF THE SEIZURE, WHEN APPELLEE NEVER OBJECTED AT TRIAL TO THE DURATION OF THE SEIZURE, AND MIL. R. EVID. 311 STATES THAT OBJECTIONS NOT MADE AT TRIAL ARE WAIVED? IV. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER MS. HOTEL WAS A GOVERNMENT ACTOR, AND IF SO, DID MS. HOTEL'S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE GOVERNMENT ACTION, THUS IMPLICATING FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION, WHEN SHE SEIZED APPELLEE'S OTHER DEVICES AND PROVIDED THEM TO HPD AND NCIS? V. HAVING FOUND A REASONABLE PROBABILIY THAT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE SEIZURE AND SEARCH OF APPELLEE'S IPHONE XS WOULD HAVE BEEN MERITORIOUS, DID THE NMCCA ERR IN NOT FINDING PREJUDICE FROM THE DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT MOVING TO SUPPRESS THIS EVIDENCE? Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 29th day of April, 2024. [related case: U.S. v. Harborth, 24-0124/NA, order granting petition for review, 18 July 2024] Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0004/SF. U.S. v. Devin W. Johnson. CCA 40257. 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. 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)). No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. [3/29/2024 order vacated by new grant order dated 24 September 2024] 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). No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. 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)). No briefs will be filed under Rule 25 Friday, February 16, 2024 Miscellaneous Docket - Summary Disposition No. 24-0054/AR. Robert M. Lundsten, Petitioner v. United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent and United States, Real Party In Interest. CCA 20220260. On further consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, we conclude that United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.9(d) conflicts with Rule for Courts-Martial 1113 and is therefore unenforceable. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition is granted, and the stay of proceedings granted on January 11, 2024, is lifted. 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)). No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. Thursday, November 2, 2023 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 23-0224/AF. U.S. v. Charles S. Nestor. CCA 40250. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decisions of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue: WHETHER UNITED STATES v. PHILLIPS, 70 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2011), WAS WRONGLY DECIDED, AND UNDER A STARE DECISIS ANALYSIS, SHOULD BE OVERRULED. IF SO, SHOULD APPELLANT'S REMAINING CONVICTION BE SET ASIDE AND DISMISSED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE TERMINAL ELEMENT? No briefs will be filed under Rule 25. Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 23-0210/AR. U.S. v. Isac D. Mendoza. CCA 20210647. 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 FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHOUT CONSENT WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. Appellant will file a brief on or before November 13, 2023; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of Appellee's answer 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