ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 98-1061/AF. U.S. v. Gregory L. ROBBINS. CCA 32613. Review granted on the following issue:
No. 99-0068/MC. U.S. v. Cesar A. ORELLANA. CCA 97-0488.
No. 99-0072/AR. U.S. v. Kevin L. YOUNKINS. CCA 9601295.
No. 99-0124/AR. U.S. v. Darren L. GARVIE. CCA 9800275.
No. 99-0156/AF. U.S. v. Ryan D. WILLIS. CCA S29584.
No. 99-0163/AF. U.S. v. Jeanne L. KAISER. CCA 33306.
No. 99-0165/AF. U.S. v. Ronald L. YOUNG. CCA S29562.
No. 99-0168/MC. U.S. v. Kairo T. SHERMAN. CCA 98-1105.
No. 99-0178/AF. U.S. v. Jeremy S. MATHIAS. CCA S29590.
No. 99-0184/NA. U.S. v. Jessica L. TAVERNI. CCA 98-0461.
No. 99-0200/AF. U.S. v. James D. PETERS. CCA 33147.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0339/AR. U.S. v. Sean S. SHALLOW. CCA 9601984.
No. 99-0340/NA. U.S. v. Steven CHAN. CCA 98-1593.
No. 99-0341/MC. U.S. v. Cory R. KNAVEL. CCA 98-1520.
No. 99-0342/NA. U.S. v. Sebastian A. BRADY. CCA 98-0650.
No. 99-0343/NA. U.S. v. Joshua E. TOWNLEY. CCA 97-1334.
No. 99-0344/AF. U.S. v. Stephen S. LAWHON. CCA 33180.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0775/AR. U.S. v. Shaun M. SMITH. CCA 9600300.
No. 98-0910/MC. U.S. v. Felix G. FOGG. CCA 96-1958.
In each of the above two cases, appellee’s motion to extend time to file answer to final brief granted but only up to and including February 25, 1999.
No. 99-0251/NA. U.S. v. Lorne L. LANDRY. CCA 97-1744. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-80
FEBRUARY 2, 1999
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 99-0243/AF. U.S. v. Michael D. CORBIN. CCA 33315. Appellant’s motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 98-0437/AR. U.S. v. David HIRALDO. CCA 9600953. */
No. 99-0346/AR. U.S. v. Andre T. HARGROVE. CCA 9601783.
No. 99-0347/AR. U.S. v. Jesse L. WINTERS. CCA 9800578.
No. 99-0349/NA. U.S. v. Shawn K. DAUGHERTY. CCA 98-0150.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 64926/AR. U.S. v. James T. MURPHY. CCA 8702873. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file request for reconsideration granted to February 23, 1999.
No. 97-0047/AR. U.S. v. Andrew G. AULL. CCA 9402074. Appellant’s motion to file matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 MJ 431 (CMA 1982), denied.
No. 98-5032/NA. U.S. v. Robert
L. FINSTER. CCA 97-1882. Appellee’s motion to correct brief and to cite
supplemental authority granted.
_______________
*/ Second petition filed in same case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-81
FEBRUARY 3, 1999
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 97-0432/AR. U.S. v. Tereasa M. HICKS. CCA 9502205. Review granted on the following issue:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT’S RIGHTS BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND RECEIVING APPELLANT’S INVOLUNTARY STATEMENTS INTO EVIDENCE AND SUCH ERROR IS NOT HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.II. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO FIND APPELLANT GUILTY OF UNPREMEDITATED MURDER.
III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT REVERSED ITS PREVIOUS FINDING THAT APPELLANT UNLAWFULLY KILLED THOMAS KRIEZ IN THE HEAT OF PASSION CAUSED BY ADEQUATE PROVOCATION, IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 119(a), UCMJ.
IV. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED THE BURDEN OF PROOF NECESSARY TO PROVE THE OFFENSE OF UNPREMEDITATED MURDER.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF "FUTURE RISK" EVIDENCE DURING PRESENTENCING WAS HARMLESS, WHERE THE IMPROPER HEARSAY TESTIMONY WENT DIRECTLY TO REHABILITATIVE POTENTIAL AND APPELLANT RECEIVED A PUNITIVE DISCHARGE.
No. 98-1072/AR. U.S. v. Johnny C. MILLER. CCA 9701295.
No. 99-0021/NA. U.S. v. Kinney E. WHITE. CCA 97-1334.
No. 99-0125/AF. U.S. v. Montell B. ASHBY, Jr. CCA S29483.
No. 99-0133/NA. U.S. v. Michael A. LUCAS. CCA 96-1537.
No. 99-0172/AF. U.S. v. Henry M.T. BRUNS. CCA 33006.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 97-0152/MC. U.S. v. Jack F. DUBOSE. CCA 95-0284. Appellant’s motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0345/AR. U.S. v. Martin W. SMITH. CCA 9701685.
No. 99-0350/AR. U.S. v. Carlos E. MORALES. CCA 9801032.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0301/MC. U.S. v. Shannon L. SCHLAMER. CCA 96-0212. Appellee’s motion to file corrected brief granted.
No. 98-5025/AF. U.S. v. Bruce A. BELFLOWER. CCA 32612. Appellee’s motion to submit corrected page granted.
No. 99-0073/AR. U.S. v. Morris T. COBIA. CCA 9601645. Appellant’s motion to admit defense appellate exhibits A and B granted.
No. 99-0258/NA. U.S. v. Brian A. WALSH. CCA 97-2144. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to March 3, 1999.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-82
FEBRUARY 4, 1999
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 97-1058/AF. U.S. v. Jason
N. ELLIOTT. CCA 32444.
On further consideration of
the granted issue (48 MJ 355), we note that one of the eighteen offenses
of which appellant was convicted, using marijuana, was committed after
the effective date of the amendment to Article 57(a), Uniform Code of Military
Justice, 10 USC § 857(a).*/
Because the military justice system employs unitary sentencing where one
sentence is imposed for all offenses before the court-martial, and the
maximum sentence for using marijuana would support application of Article
57(a)(1) on its own, see para. 37e(1)(b), Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (1995 ed.), enforcement of this code provision did not violate
the Ex Post Facto Clause. See generally United
States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1259 (8th Cir. 1994);
United
States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2d Cir. 1994). Therefore,
United
States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370 (1997), does not apply. Accordingly, the
decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed
as to result only.
Senior Judge Everett did not participate.
Judge Effron did not participate in this decision. See United States v Gorski, 48 MJ 317 (1997). This is without prejudice to his future participation in this case should it subsequently be presented to this Court in a manner that does not require determination of the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution to the amendments to Title 10, United States Code, made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 462-63 (1996).
SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting):
I would remand the case to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. See my separate opinions in United States v. Roseboro, No. 98-0439, MJ (Daily Journal July 27, 1998) [See Court Home Page Under Interlocutory Orders]; United States v. Keeney, No. 97-0596, MJ (Daily Journal April 15, 1998); and United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370, 376 (1997).
No. 98-0824/AR. U.S. v. Reginald B. THOMPSON. CCA 9600958. On consideration of the petition for grant of review and the Government's concession of error with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence of appellant's intent in assaulting the victim alleged in specification 5 of Charge II, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain only a finding of guilty to assault consummated by a battery. However, in view of the other, more serious, offenses of which appellant stands convicted, we are highly confident that the finding of guilty to the specification, referred to the court-martial, played no appreciable role in the determination of the sentence in this case, even in view of the action of the convening authority in disapproving another specification. Cf. United States v. Fox, 10 MJ 176, 177 (CMA 1981); see also United States v. Thompson, 22 USCMA 88, 91, 46 CMR 88, 91 (1972). Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition for grant of review is granted on the following issue:
That the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to Charge I and its specification; specifications 2-4 of Charge II; specification 5 of Charge II as amended; and Charge II; and the sentence. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting):
The Government at the appellate court below "acknowledged that the evidence is factually insufficient . . . " concerning specification 5 of Charge II. (App. Br. at 6.) It further stated:
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 98-0679/AR. U.S. v. Carlos V. DIAZ-DUPREY. CCA 9600181. Review granted on the following issue:
No. 98-0824/AR. U.S. v. Reginald B. THOMPSON. CCA 9600958. [See also APPEALS SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
No. 98-0987/AR. U.S. v. Charlie SCOTT. CCA 9502201. Review granted on the following issue (as modified):
No. 98-1093/AF. U.S. v. Clois J. WEBB. CCA 32521.
No. 99-0033/NA. U.S. v. Lisa D. TURNER. CCA 98-0202.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 98-1098/AR. U.S. v. Terry KELLEY. CCA 9600727. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals in the above-entitled case in light of United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370 (1997), it is ordered that 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 consideration of whether the amendment to Article 57(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 857(a), made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 462 (1996), affects the sentence in this case. Following these proceedings, Article 67(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 867(a)(1994), will apply.
SULLIVAN, Judge (concurring): I concur. See my separate opinion in United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370, 376 (1997).
Judge Effron did not participate in this decision. See United States v. Gorski, 48 MJ 317 (1997). This is without prejudice to his future participation in this case should it subsequently be presented to this Court in a manner that does not require determination of the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution to the amendments to Title 10, United States Code, made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 462-63 (1996).
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 99-8014/AF. Matthew M. OLSON, appellant, v. United States, appellee. CCA 98-09. Writ appeal petition for review of a denial of a petition for extraordinary relief denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0942/MC. U.S. v. Rafael A. RUIZGARCIA. CCA 97-0630. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration denied; appellant’s motion to cite supplemental authority granted.
No. 99-0136/AR. U.S. v. Robert L. WILLIAMS, III. CCA 9800549. Appellant’s
third motion to extend
time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to March
1, 1999.
______________________
*/ Because the approved sentence included total forfeitures, Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b, did not apply.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-83
FEBRUARY 5, 1999
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 99-0065/MC. U.S. v. Carlos M. SORIANOCARCAMO. CCA 97-1163.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0351/AR. U.S. v. Michael E. BRASCH. CCA 9701690.
No. 99-0352/AR. U.S. v. Lionel L. SWANSON. CCA 9800198.
No. 99-0353/NA. U.S. v. Bryan L. BRADLEY. CCA 98-1415.
No. 99-0354/MC. U.S. v. Mark A. PAWLIK. CCA 97-1063.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0037/MC. U.S. v. Kevin M. HOLT. CCA 94-2003. Appellant’s motion to amend pleadings granted.
No. 98-0822/AR. U.S. v. Grady D. GLOVER. CCA 9600736. Appellant’s third motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including February 19, 1999.
No. 98-0957/AR. U.S. v. Gregory S. WILLIS. CCA 9500730. Sixth motion granted to Feb. 12, 1999.
No. 99-0268/AR. U.S. v. James A. LENESKI. CCA 9601341. To Mar. 4, 1999.
In each of the above two cases, appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to date indicated.
No. 98-1021/MC. U.S. v. Robert C. MARINE. CCA 96-2491.
No. 98-5030/AR. U.S. v. Timothy B. GIBSON. CCA 9600274.
In each of the above two cases, appellee’s motion to cite supplemental authorities granted.
No. 98-1118/NA. U.S. v. Michael CARDREON. CCA 97-0015. Appellant’s motions to file reply on behalf of appellant and to substitute pleadings granted.
No. 99-0124/AR. U.S. v. Darren L. GARVIE. CCA 9800275. Appellant’s motion to file supplemental matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon denied as moot.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-84
FEBRUARY 8, 1999
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0355/AR. U.S. v. Onetia P. SCHENCK. CCA 9601949.
No. 99-0356/AR. U.S. v. Seth C. SOMERVILL. CCA 9701212.
No. 99-0357/NA. U.S. v. Leo O. DYER. CCA 97-0016.
No. 99-0358/NA. U.S. v. Steven M. PEARSON. CCA 98-0981.
No. 99-0359/AF. U.S. v. Kevin P. BIEHL. CCA 33399.
No. 99-0360/AF. U.S. v. Kelly N. MCGREW. CCA 33388.
PETITIONS FOR NEW TRIAL - FILINGS
No. 98-0092/MC. U.S. v. Warren B. ANDERSON. CCA 96-0467.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0825/MC. U.S. v. Shanard R. MCDANIELS. CCA 97-0570.
No. 98-1050/NA. U.S. v. Daniel H. CARPENTER. CCA 97-2146.
In each of the above two cases, appellee’s and appellant’s joint motion to move argument granted.
No. 98-1001/MC. U.S. v. David W. MAGNAN. CCA 97-2071. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file final brief granted to March 18, 1999.
No. 98-5030/AR. U.S. v. Timothy B. GIBSON. CCA 9600274. Appellant’s motion to file supplemental citation of authority granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-85
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
HEARINGS
No. 96-1241/AF. U.S. v. Johnnie M. TAYLOR. CCA 31574.
No. 98-0301/MC. U.S. v. Shannon L. SCHLAMER. CCA 96-0212.
No. 98-0489/NA. U.S. v. Anthony R. SHERMAN. CCA 96-0840.
No. 98-5025/AF. U.S. v. Bruce A. BELFLOWER. CCA 32612.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0361/MC. U.S. v. Gregory D. REYNOLDS. CCA 97-1366.
No. 99-0362/NA. U.S. v. Jereme D. SCHOEMAKER. CCA 98-0648.
No. 99-0363/MC. U.S. v. Michael G. WILLIAMS. CCA 97-2089.
No. 99-0364/NA. U.S. v. Todd M. WILSON. CCA 98-0238.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 97-0506/AR. U.S. v. John A. ROBINSON. CCA 9301094. Third motion granted to March 8, 1999.
No. 99-0120/AF. U.S. v. Shonnon D. WILSON. CCA 32849. Third motion granted to February 26, 1999.
No. 99-0232/AR. U.S. v. Robert W. MARTIN. CCA 9600413. Second motion granted to March 19, 1999.
No. 99-0277/AR. U.S. v. William GREEN. CCA 9800407. To February 16,1999.
No. 99-0286/AR. U.S. v. Marcus T. GOLSTON. CCA 9600326. To March 15, 1999.
No. 99-0287/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin
I. BALL. CCA 9701401. To
February 26, 1999.
No. 99-0306/MC. U.S. v. James D. GUTHRIE. CCA 95-1697. Granted but only to March 24, 1999.
In each of the above seven cases, appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to date indicated.
No. 98-0811/AR. U.S. v. Ezell MCCALPINE, Jr. CCA 9701508. Appellee’s motion to file answer to supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.
No. 98-0829/NA. U.S. v. Eric L. JOHNSTON. CCA 94-1274. Appellant and appellee’s motions to cite supplemental authority granted.
No. 98-0855/AR. U.S. v. David
R. FORD. CCA 9601467. Appellant’s second motion to extend time to
file final brief granted up to
February 23, 1999.
No. 98-1050/NA. U.S. v. Daniel H. CARPENTER. CCA 97-2146.
No. 98-5032/NA. U.S. v. Robert L. FINSTER. CCA 97-1882.
In each of the above two cases, appellant’s motion to cite supplemental authority granted.
No. 99-0256/AR. U.S. v. Michael R. ARMSTRONG. CCA 9601966. Appellant’s motions to attach index and to correct errata granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-86
FEBRUARY 10, 1999
HEARINGS
No. 98-0829/NA. U.S. v. Eric L. JOHNSTON. CCA 94-1274.
No. 98-1021/MC. U.S. v. Robert C. MARINE. CCA 96-2491.
No. 98-5030/AR. U.S. v. Timothy B. GIBSON. CCA 9600274.
No. 98-5032/NA. U.S. v. Robert L. FINSTER. CCA 97-1882.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 95-0775/NA. U.S. v. James K. EDWARDS. CCA 94-0029. */
No. 99-0365/MC. U.S. v. Todd A. NAPOLITANO. CCA 97-0675.
No. 99-0366/NA. U.S. v. Rodney
E. MILLER. CCA 97-0005.
_________________
*/ Second petition filed in same case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-87
FEBRUARY 11, 1999
HEARINGS
No. 96-0507/MC. U.S. v. William S. MCLAUGHLIN, III. CCA 94-2095.
No. 98-0199/AF. U.S. v. Wade P. HAWES. CCA 32481.
No. 98-0471/MC. U.S. v. Rodney O. MORRIS. CCA 96-1146.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 99-0048/AF. U.S. v. Jack D. FAUS. CCA 32873.
No. 99-0106/AR. U.S. v. William J. BOCKSTOCE. CCA 9800242.
No. 99-0144/MC. U.S. v. Sheldon R. SWINDELL. CCA 98-0632.
No. 99-0176/AR. U.S. v. Nathanael W. PURDY. CCA 9800104.
No. 99-0203/MC. U.S. v. Rodney A. CLARK. CCA 98-1132.
No. 99-0207/AF. U.S. v. Charles E. CRAIG Jr. CCA 33198.
No. 99-0208/NA. U.S. v. David B. RACHINSKI. CCA 98-1072.
No. 99-0215/MC. U.S. v. Edward J. MARTIN III. CCA 98-0195.
No. 99-0219/AF. U.S. v. Jason M. MIRANDA. CCA 33286.
No. 99-0222/AF. U.S. v. Michael C. TOME. CCA S29549.
No. 99-0227/NA. U.S. v. Eric K. THORNTON. CCA 98-1210
No. 99-0230/AF. U.S. v. Vincent P. ILOMIN. CCA 33132.
No. 99-0234/AF. U.S. v. Steven J.STEPIEN. CCA 33331.
No. 99-0235/AF. U.S. v. Ben B. STOVALL. CCA 33242.
No. 99-0237/MC. U.S. v. Bryan C. HOLZBERLEIN. CCA 98-1334.
No. 99-0238/MC. U.S. v. Brian D. JERSEY. CCA 98-0941.
No. 99-0239/AF. U.S. v. Christine L. GINN. CCA S29560.
No. 99-0240/MC. U.S. v. Victor M. GONZALEZ Jr. CCA 98-0663.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0367/MC. U.S. v. Craig J. SPERANZI. CCA 98-1588.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 99-8015/AF. Donald BELL, petitioner, v. United States, respondent. CCA 30813. Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of error coram nobis denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0488/AR. U.S. v. Lawrence P. ROCKWOOD, II. CCA 9500872. Motions filed by students and supervising professor of the William and Mary School of Law to appear as amicus curiae, to file a brief in electronic form and to present oral argument with the assistance of electronic means granted. Oral argument allowed for 15 minutes. Amicus curiae shall also file an original and seven copies of the brief in traditional form and shall serve copies thereof on the parties.
No. 98-1001/MC. U.S. v. David W. MAGNAN. CCA 997-2071. Motion filed by LCDR Rebecca L. Gilchrist to withdraw as appellate counsel granted.
No. 98-1111/AR. U.S. v. James W. HUFF, Jr. CCA 9600772. Appellant’s fifth motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-88
FEBRUARY 12, 1999
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 98-1109/AR. U.S. v. Jason E. NELSON. CCA 9601144. Review granted on the following issue:
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 99-0183/AR. U.S. v. John G. RICHARDSON, II. CCA 9600725.
No. 99-0220/AR. U.S. v. Jason S. DAVIS. CCA 9800737.
No. 99-0231/MC. U.S. v. Randall WILSON, Jr. CCA 98-1048.
No. 99-0245/AR. U.S. v. Ryan GOLDSTEIN. CCA 9800250.
No. 99-0249/NA. U.S. v. Ronald S. LEMISTER, Jr. CCA 98-0658.
No. 99-0250/AF. U.S. v. David D. PORTER. CCA 33267.
No. 99-0254/AF. U.S. v. Richard A. OVERSTREET. CCA 33261.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 99-6001/AF. U.S. v. James J. EWING. CCA 98-06. On consideration of appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 862, and appellee’s motion for expedited review, it is ordered that said petition for grant of review is denied without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the matters asserted in the petition during the course of normal appellate review if he is convicted, and that said motion for expedited review is denied as moot.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0368/AR. U.S. v. James E. GEORGE, Jr. CCA 9700180.
No. 99-0369/AF. U.S. v. Jason E. HISE. CCA 32800.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0758/NA. U.S. v. Sarah F. THOMASSON. CCA 96-0938. Appellee’s motion to extend time to final answer to final brief granted to February 19, 1999.
No. 98-0795/NA. U.S. v. Craig D. BROWNFIELD. CCA 93-1483. Appellant’s first motion to extend time to file final brief granted but only up to and including March 15, 1999.
No. 98-1013/AR. U.S. v. Stephen F. MESSNER. CCA 9600694. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals in the above-entitled case, in which appellant asserts that he is entitled to the relief prescribed in our opinion in United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370 (1997), we note that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has established a procedure whereby servicemembers may apply directly for return of any monies improperly withheld as a result of the improper application of the amendment to Article 57(a) and the addition of Article 58b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 857(a) and 858b, respectively. We are further advised that appellant’s claim for back pay and allowances was received by DFAS before his petition for grant of review was filed with this Court, and may be pending resolution by DFAS at this time. Accordingly, it is ordered that within 30 days of the date of this Order, counsel for the United States advise this Court in writing of the status of appellant’s DFAS claim for reimbursement; and that action on appellant’s petition for grant of review shall be deferred until a response has been filed with the Court by the United States and served on counsel for appellant.
Judge Effron did not participate in the Court’s prior actions on motions in this case. In view of the materials filed by the parties, the case now is before the Court in a manner that does not require determination of the constitutionality under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the amendments to Title 10, United States Code, made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. Accordingly, Judge Effron has participated in the decision on this order and will participate in any further proceedings on this case.
No. 98-1089/AR. U.S. v. Sean G. GRIGORUK. CCA 9600949. Appellant’s third motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to March 10, 1999.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-89
FEBRUARY 16, 1999
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 98-1040/AF. U.S. v. David M. KLEMENS. CCA 32981.
No. 98-1046/AF. U.S. v. Eddie L. HALL. CCA S29382.
No. 98-1049/AF. U.S. v. Richard E. MCSHEFFREY. CCA 32938.
In each of the above three cases, Judge Sullivan filed the following dissent:
SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting):
I would remand this case to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. See United States v. Keeney, No. 97-0596/AF, MJ (Daily Journal April 15, 1998)(Sullivan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) as amended (2 Sept. 1998); and United States v. Roseboro, No. 98-0439, MJ (Daily Journal July 27, 1998)(Sullivan, J., dissenting) [See Court Home Page Under Interlocutory Orders].
Judge Effron did not participate in the decision in any of the above three cases. See United States v. Gorski, 48 MJ 317 (1997). This is without prejudice to his future participation in these cases should they subsequently be presented to this Court in a manner that does not require determination of the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution to the amendments to Title 10, United States Code, made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 462-63 (1996).
PETITION FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITION
No. 99-0295/AR. U.S. v. Eugene A. WARD. CCA 9700341. Appellant’s motion to withdraw petition for grant of review granted.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0370/AR. U.S. v. James E. GEORGE, Jr. CCA 9700630.
No. 99-0371/AR. U.S. v. Steven L. HILL. CCA 9701538.
No. 99-0372/AR. U.S. v. Terrance T. BRADHAM. CCA 9800533.
No. 99-0373/AR. U.S. v. Marion A. PHILLIPS. CCA 9800289.
No. 99-0374/AR. U.S. v. Toussaint L. LEWIS. CCA 9602074.
No. 99-0375/MC. U.S. v. Lane E. JAYNES. CCA 98-1185.
No. 99-0376/MC. U.S. v. Michael L. WILSON. CCA 98-1571.
No. 99-0377/MC. U.S. v. Nickolas J. WEBB. CCA 97-2153.
No. 99-0378/MC. U.S. v. Byron H. MAHLER. CCA 97-0558.
No. 99-0379/AF. U.S. v. Christopher TERRONEZ. CCA S29591.
No. 99-0380/AF. U.S. v. Matthew S. BECK. CCA 33069.
No. 99-0381/AF. U.S. v. Jeffrey D. GRIFFITH. CCA 33225.
No. 99-0382/AF. U.S. v. Alfred G. HOGEDA, Jr. CCA 33256.
No. 99-0383/AF. U.S. v. Jamar A. HOLDER. CCA S29588.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
No. 99-8016/MC. Richard E. JOHNSON, appellant, v. United States, appellee. CCA 98-1076. Writ appeal petition for review of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals denial of a petition for extraordinary relief filed under Rule 27(b). Appellee will file an answer on or before February 26, 1999.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No. 97-0623/AF. U.S. v. Rodney R. CORNWELL. CCA 32169.
SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting): I would grant the petition for reconsideration.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0322/AR. U.S. v. Frederick J.B. JONES. CCA 9700692.
No. 98-0385/AR. U.S. v. Daniel J. DE SANTI. CCA 9601323.
No. 98-0389/AR. U.S. v. James O. WRIGHT. CCA 9601769.
No. 98-0440/AR. U.S. v. John H.I. WARNER. CCA 9601510.
No. 98-0468/AR. U.S. v. David E. NIX. CCA 9600778.
No. 98-0534/AR. U.S. v. Edward L. WORTHINGTON. CCA 9601109.
In each of the above six cases, appellee’s motion to admit appellate exhibit A granted.
No. 99-0196/AF. U.S. v. Eric J. WOLANIN. CCA 32845. Second motion granted to March 3, 1999.
No. 99-0264/AF. U.S. v. Jayson L. CARTER. CCA 33182. To March 5, 1999.
In each of the above two cases, appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to date indicated.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-90
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 97-1184/AR. U.S. v. Dane Z. CLAY. CCA 9500843. On further consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Rivers, 49 MJ 434 (1998), and after careful review of the record and examination in camera of the sealed documents in question, we hold that neither the military judge nor the Court of Criminal Appeals abused their discretion in denying appellant’s request for access to the sealed documents. Accordingly, the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
No. 98-0744/AF. U.S. v. Kenneth J. KUSOWSKI. CCA 32635. On further consideration of the granted issue, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. See United States v. Wheelus, 49 MJ 283 (1998).
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 98-1126/AR. U.S. v. James M. WHALEN. CCA 9601975.
No. 99-0059/AR. U.S. v. Wilferd E. HARPER. CCA 9601935.
No. 99-0083/AF. U.S. v. Michael OWENS. CCA 32695.
No. 99-0115/AF. U.S. v. Bryan J. BRYANT. CCA 32253.
No. 99-0143/MC. U.S. v. Donald R. DINKEL. CCA 97-0531.
No. 99-0169/MC. U.S. v. Douglas R. LEIBROCK. CCA 98-1135.
No. 99-0171/AF. U.S. v. Ruben M. GONZALEZ. CCA S29372.
No. 99-0179/AF. U.S. v. Ronald D. SUCGANG. CCA 33170.
No. 99-0186/AF. U.S. v. Voytek P. CHMIEL. CCA S29582.
No. 99-0199/AF. U.S. v. Johnathan W. DOKES. CCA S29396.
No. 99-0248/MC. U.S. v. Shawn M. RILEY. CCA 97-0942.
No. 99-0257/MC. U.S. v. Charles M. HECKMAN. CCA 98-1342.
No. 99-0259/AF. U.S. v. Christopher N. WHEATLEY. CCA 33263.
No. 99-0275/AF. U.S. v. Juan P. BARRIOS. CCA 33382.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0384/AF. U.S. v. Kareem L. WALLACE, Jr. CCA S29543.
No. 99-0385/AF. U.S. v. Eddie J. SOCHIA. CCA S29521.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 99-0129/AF. U.S. v. Ross A. MCFADYEN. CCA 32878. Appellant’s first motion to extend time to file final brief granted up to and including March 18, 1999.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-91
FEBRUARY 18, 1999
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 98-0938/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin T. FIELD. CCA 9700785. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:
The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for further consideration of the issue in accordance with United States v. Ginn, 47 MJ 236 (1997). Thereafter, Article 67, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867, will apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]WHETHER THE SHAVING OF APPELLANT’S HEAD AMOUNTED TO UNLAWFUL PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13, UCMJ, 10 USC § 813, AND ENTITLED HIM TO SENTENCE CREDIT.
CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting): I would deny the petition for grant of review.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 98-0938/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin T. FIELD. CCA 9700785. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0386/AR. U.S. v. Herbert R. DRAYTON, Jr. CCA 9801594.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No. 97-0543/AF. U.S. v. Herman RIOS, Jr. CCA 31877. On consideration of appellant’s motion to file a reconsideration out of time and petition for reconsideration, it is ordered that said motion to file the petition for reconsideration out of time is granted and said petition for reconsideration is denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 97-0988/AR. U.S. v. Martin H. PELECH. CCA 9601153. Appellee’s motion to file index out of time granted.
No. 98-0811/AR. U.S. v. Ezell MCCALPINE, Jr. CCA 9701508. Appellant’s motion to correct errata granted.
No. 99-0109/MC. U.S. v. Timothy S. DUNCAN. CCA 96-0701. Appellee’s motion to extend time to file answer to supplement to petition for grant of review granted to March 18, 1999.
No. 99-0216/AR. U.S. v. Kenneth J. JONES. CCA 9800829.
No. 99-0281/AR. U.S. v. Kadix E. FRANCO. CCA 9602043.
In each of the above two cases, appellant’s motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.
No. 99-0296/AR. U.S. v. Robert M. MINA. CCA 9800294. To March 18, 1999.
No. 99-0303/AF. U.S. v. Paul H. MURRAY. CCA 32670. To March 21, 1999.
In each of the above two cases, appellant’s motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to date indicated.
No. 99-0260/AF. U.S. v. Timothy D. SAPP. CCA 32641. Appellant’s motion to submit documents denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-92
FEBRUARY 19, 1999
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 97-0913/AF. U.S. v. Louis D. BOOKER. CCA S29314. On further consideration of the specified issue (48 MJ 326) in light of United States v. Hill, 48 MJ 352 (1997), we hold that the offenses of carnal knowledge and adultery were not multiplicious for findings.
On further consideration of the issue raised by appellate defense counsel, we note that all three of the offenses of which appellant was convicted occurred between on or about 1 March 1996 and on or about 15 August or 30 September 1996. Based on the pleas of guilty, we conclude that the offenses were committed, at least in part, after the effective date of the amendment to Article 57(a) and the addition of Article 58b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 857(a) and 858b, respectively. "A statute does not violate ex post facto principles where it applies to a crime that 'began prior to, but continued after' the statute's effective date." United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 291 (2d Cir. 1994); see generally United States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1259 (8th Cir. 1994). Thus, application of these amendments did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Therefore, United States v. Gorski, 47 MJ 370 (1997), does not apply. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed as to result only.
SULLIVAN, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the disposition of the specified issue. However, I would remand this case to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration of the granted issue in light of the views expressed in my separate opinions in United States v. Gorksi, 47 MJ 370, 376 (1997), and United States v. Keeney, No. 97-0596, MJ (Daily Journal April 15, 1998).
Senior Judge Everett did not participate.
Judge Effron did not participate in this decision. See United States v. Gorski, 48 MJ 317 (1997). This is without prejudice to his future participation in this case should it subsequently be presented to this Court in a manner that does not require determination of the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution to the amendments to Title 10, United States Code, made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 462-63 (1996).
No. 98-0022/AF. U.S. v. Shymeka E. HALL. CCA 32502. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on further review, we conclude that the action taken by the court below was correct as a matter of law. Accordingly, the petition for grant of review is granted and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on further review is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
SULLIVAN, Judge (dissenting):
I would remand this case to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. See United States v. Keeney, No. 97-0596/AF, MJ (Daily Journal April 15, 1998)(Sullivan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) as amended (2 Sept. 1998); and United States v. Roseboro, No. 98-0439, MJ (Daily Journal, July 27, 1998)(Sullivan, J., dissenting) [See Court Home Page Under Interlocutory Orders].
Judge Effron did not participate in this decision. See United States v. Gorski, 48 MJ 317 (1997). This is without prejudice to his future participation in this case should it subsequently be presented to this Court in a manner that does not require determination of the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution to the amendments to Title 10, United States Code, made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 462-63 (1996).
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 98-0022/AF. U.S. v. Shymeka E. HALL. CCA 32502. [See also APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0387/AR. U.S. v. Marcella L. ZIMMERMAN. CCA 9601900.
No. 99-0388/AR. U.S. v. Samuel C. MENDENHALL. CCA 9800094.
No. 99-0389/NA. U.S. v. Bryan L. GREER. CCA 98-0273.
No. 99-0390/MC. U.S. v. Khan S. HAMID. CCA 98-0578.
No. 99-0391/AF. U.S. v. Michael P. DYMOND. CCA 33247.
No. 99-0392/AF. U.S. v. Russell T. DOUCET. CCA 32799.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 99-8012/AF. Keno K. ARMSTRONG, appellant, v. United States, appellee. CCA 99-01. Writ appeal petition denied without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the matter asserted in the writ appeal petition during the course of normal appellate review. Appellant’s motion to submit document granted; appellant’s motion for appropriate relief denied as moot; appellee’s motion to dismiss writ appeal petition denied as moot.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0488/AR. U.S. v. Lawrence P. ROCKWOOD, II. CCA 9500872. Motion filed by amicus curiae requesting suspension of rules granted.
No. 99-0285/MC. U.S. v. Andy N. MCCOY. CCA 98-1144. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 97-0623/AF. U.S. v. Rodney R. CORNWELL. CCA 32169.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-93
FEBRUARY 22, 1999
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 97-0286/AR. U.S. v. Stuart W. SMITH. CCA 9500065. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on further review, we conclude that the action taken by the court below was correct as a matter of law. Accordingly, the petition for grant of review is granted and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on further review is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 97-0286/AR. U.S. v. Stuart W. SMITH. CCA 9500065. [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
No. 98-1113/AF. U.S. v. David S. BRADLEY. CCA 32387. Review granted on the following issues:
II. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION AND/OR SENTENCE IN THIS CASE WAS THE RESULT OF THE IMPROPER EXERCISE OF COMMAND INFLUENCE AND/OR IMPROPER ACTIONS BY THE SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENING AUTHORITY'S STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE.
No. 99-0393/AR. U.S. v. Andy R. MATTISON. CCA 9700828.
No. 99-0394/NA. U.S. v. Kenneth A. WIGGINS. CCA 98-1546.
No. 99-0395/MC. U.S. v. Erick H. KNIGHT. CCA 97-1476.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0359/AF. U.S. v. Raymond D. KERR. CCA 32249. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file reply brief granted to March 8, 1999.
No. 98-0721/NA. U.S. v. Teresa S. MILEY. CCA 96-0822. To Mar. 22, 1999.
No. 98-0914/AR. U.S. v. Monty J. HARRIS. CCA 9401997. To Mar. 22, 1999.
No. 98-1039/NA. U.S. v. Kevin M. ROBERTS. CCA 97-0767. To Mar. 24, 1999.
In each of the above three cases, appellant’s motion to extend time to file final brief granted to date indicated.
No. 98-0769/MC. U.S. v. Terrance L. SPANN. CCA 96-1420. Appellee’s motion to extend time to file answer to final brief granted to February 26, 1999.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-94
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0396/AR. U.S. v. Ray C. RICHARDSON. CCA 9801130.
No. 99-0397/AR. U.S. v. Ignacio TORRES. CCA 9800429.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0658/NA. U.S. v. Darrell J. MUIRHEAD. CCA 96-1211. Appellant’s motion to file final brief granted to March 10, 1999.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-95
FEBRUARY 24, 1999
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW – OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 97-0963/AF. U.S. v. Charles E. HANLEY, III. CCA 32370. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on further review, we note that the appellant has asserted that his trial defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move for appropriate sentencing credit for a period of 24 days that appellant was allegedly restricted to his dorm room because such restriction was tantamount to confinement. We have sought and been provided an affidavit from trial defense counsel to explain "why the pretrial confinement question now raised by appellant in Issue II was not raised at trial in the form of a request for sentence credit." ___ MJ ___ (Daily Journal September 30, 1998). However, the record of trial, the pleadings, and the affidavit do not demonstrate conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief. See United States v. Ginn, 47 MJ 236 (1997). Therefore, we believe that further inquiry concerning this allegation must be undertaken before we can continue our review of this case. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on further review is set aside; and that the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for transmission of the record to an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction for a factfinding hearing solely for the purpose of determining the matter noted above. See United States v. DuBay, 17 USCMA 147, 37 CMR 411 (1967). Following this proceeding, Articles 66 and 67, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 866 and 867 (1994), respectively, will apply.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0398/MC. U.S. v. Michael O. KEEVE. CCA 97-1980.
No. 99-0399/MC. U.S. v. Jose D. Avila, Jr. CCA 97-0776.
No. 99-0400/AF. U.S. v. Joseph R. DUFFY. CCA 32977.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 96-1241/AF. U.S. v. Johnnie M. TAYLOR. CCA 31574. Appellant’s and appellee’s motions to file supplemental citation of authority granted.
No. 98-0784/MC. U.S. v. Jason M. ABRAMS. CCA 96-1714. Appellee’s motion to cite supplemental authority granted.
No. 98-0910/MC. U.S. v. Felix G. FOGG. CCA 96-1958. On consideration of the motion filed by the Appellate Litigation Program, Georgetown University Law Center, seeking permission to appear as amicus curiae and to present oral argument granted; amicus curiae is granted 5 minutes to present oral argument.
No. 99-0306/MC. U.S. v. James D. GUTHRIE. CCA 95-1697. To Apr. 12, 1999.
No. 99-0311/AR. U.S. v. Brant D. PFISTER. CCA 9600589. To Mar. 26, 1999.
No. 99-0314/MC. U.S. v. Milton D. STEELE. CCA 97-1236. To Mar. 26, 1999.
No. 99-0355/AR. U.S. v. Onetia P. SCHENCK. CCA 9601949. To Apr. 10, 1999.
In each of the above four cases, appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to date indicated.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-96
FEBRUARY 25, 1999
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0401/AR. U.S. v. Chrissandra V. MARBURY. CCA 9700371.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0775/AR. U.S. v. Shaun M. SMITH. CCA 9600300. Appellant’s motion to file supplemental citations of authority granted.
No. 98-0783/NA. U.S. v. Michael W. FRICKE. CCA 96-1293. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file reply brief granted to March 15, 1999.
No. 98-0998/AR. U.S. v. Jose M. MARTINEZ. CCA 9501957. Appellee’s motion to file answer to final brief out of time granted.
No. 99-0244/AR. U.S. v. Omar J. WALKER. CCA 9600561. Appellee’s motion to admit government appellate exhibit A granted.
No. 99-0308/AR. U.S. v. Allen W. SAUNDERS. CCA 9800744. To Mar. 24, 1999. No. 99-0309/AR. U.S. v. Sherdell HOOD. CCA 9501547. To Mar. 26, 1999.
No. 99-0310/AR. U.S. v. Douglas K. OLIVER. CCA 9601776. To Mar. 24, 1999.
In each of the above three cases, appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to date indicated.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
NO. 99-97
FEBRUARY 26, 1999
HEARINGS
No. 98-0488/AR. U.S. v. Lawrence P. ROCKWOOD, II. CCA 9500872. */
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 99-0402/AR. U.S. v. Anthony D. WILLIAMS. CCA 9800731.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 98-0308/AR. U.S. v. Paul D. PIERCE. CCA 9601171. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to March 31, 1999.
No. 99-8016/MC. U.S. v. Richard
E. JOHNSON. CCA 98-1076. Appellant’s motion to attach documents granted;
appellee’s motion to extend time to file answer to writ appeal petition
granted to March 16, 1999.
________________
*/ This case was heard at the William and Mary School of Law, Williamsburg, Virginia, as part of the Court’s "Project Outreach" Program.