UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-185

Friday, June 30, 2006

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 06-8018/AR.  Daniel I. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. The Judge Advocate General of the Army and Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Respondents.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus or a writ of habeas corpus was filed under Rule 27(a) on June 20, 2006, and placed on the docket this date.  On consideration thereof, said petition is hereby denied.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – FILINGS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 06-8018/AR.  Daniel I. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. The Judge Advocate General of the Army and Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Respondents.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0060/AF.  U.S. v. Stacey S. BROOKS.  CCA 35420.  Appellant's motion to submit documents granted.

 

No. 06-0657/AF.  U.S. v. Paul H. SCHRODER.  CCA 35855.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 31, 2006.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-184

Thursday, June 29, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0724/MC.  U.S. v. Abran C. ALMARAZ.  CCA 200501294.

No. 06-0725/AR.  U.S. v. Wesley FOSTER.  CCA 20030645.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-183

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0482/AF.  U.S. v. Bill J. SMITH.  CCA 35832.

No. 06-0501/AF.  U.S. v. Michael E. HARRIS.  CCA 35672.

No. 06-0516/AF.  U.S. v. Gabriel G. LOPEZ.  CCA 36306.

No. 06-0542/AF.  U.S. v. Aaron K. BLACKMAN.  CCA 35862.

No. 06-0548/AF.  U.S. v. Rhoderic J. MENDOZA.  CCA 36214.

No. 06-0549/AF.  U.S. v. Antwon L. OWENS.  CCA S30715.

No. 06-0559/AF.  U.S. v. Brian C. HILLS.  CCA 35985.

No. 06-0573/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. WILLIAMS, Jr.  CCA 36281.

No. 06-0635/AF.  U.S. v. Marc A. PALMOSINA.  CCA 36242.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0721/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. KELLY.  CCA 20040422.

No. 06-0722/NA.  U.S. v. Andre D. BROOKS.  CCA 200501378.

No. 06-0723/NA.  U.S. v. Daniel M. STRONG.  CCA 200500512.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0585/AR.  U.S. v. Stacy S. HOLDER-GIDDINGS.  CCA 20050507.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 06-0587/AR.  U.S. v. Donyale R. DAVIS.  CCA 20010891.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 05-0592/NA.  U.S. v. Michael A. WHITE.  CCA 200101242.  Appellant’s motion to attach documents granted.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-182

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 06-0360/AF.  U.S. v. Randy J. DARJEAN.  CCA 35938.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that the staff judge advocate provided erroneous advice to the convening authority regarding the deferral and waiver of mandatory forfeitures.  See United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  In light of this error, we hold that Appellant’s request for deferral of mandatory forfeitures was improperly denied and that the convening authority improperly implemented a six-month waiver of mandatory forfeitures that included a period of time prior to his action when deferral was the appropriate mechanism.  Accordingly, said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO DEFER AUTOMATIC FORFEITURES UNTIL ACTION BASED ON ERRONEOUS LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE.

 

     The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, as is the convening authority’s action.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand for a new staff judge advocate’s recommendation and convening authority’s action.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0360/AF.  U.S. v. Randy J. DARJEAN.  CCA 35938.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0412/AR.  U.S. v. William L. WILES, III.  CCA 20051054.

No. 06-0487/AR.  U.S. v. Travion J. REED.  CCA 20050637.

No. 06-0519/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. COX.  CCA 20051075.

No. 06-0527/AR.  U.S. v. Danielle A. REED.  CCA 20040627.1/

No. 06-0538/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph E. DOWDY.  CCA 20041112.

No. 06-0582/AR.  U.S. v. Scott E. CRONQUIST.  CCA 20040172.

No. 06-0602/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin L. MCMAHAN.  CCA 20050982.

No. 06-0612/AR.  U.S. v. Omar E. JACKSON.  CCA 20051101.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0632/AR.  U.S. v. Brian D. PALMARIN.  CCA 20050418.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 24, 2006.

 

No. 06-0640/AR.  U.S. v. Jake S. GOTHAM.  CCA 20031213.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 26, 2006.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-0797/AR.  U.S. v. David P. CHRISTIAN.  CCA 20011021.

____________

 

1/  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected by adding the following words and figures to the end of the summary of Specification 9 following the word “visual:” “depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.”

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-181

Monday, June 26, 2006

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0699/AF.  U.S. v. Ashea L. FULLER.  CCA 35058.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 60 M.J. 424 (C.A.A.F. 2004), and in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Brewer, 61 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2005), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.  The findings and sentence are set aside.  The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.  A rehearing is authorized.

 

CRAWFORD, Judge (dissenting):  I dissent for the reasons set forth in Judge Baker’s opinion.  See United States v. Brewer, 61 M.J. 425, 439-44 (C.A.A.F. 2005)(Baker, J., dissenting).

 

BAKER, Judge (dissenting):  On the testimonial issue, the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in Brewer.  Here, defense counsel proffered four witnesses who:

 

will testify about [sic] they were her roommates and friends.  They’ll testify about [sic] they can account for the majority of time for Airman Fuller during this charged timeframe.  That they were living with her, they would go to events with her, that she was active in community involvement and that they had direct observation of this community involvement. . . .

 

Further, counsel proffered that the witnesses would testify that they did not see Appellant use drugs or appear under the influence of drugs, thus offering Appellant an alibi for “specific times during this diverse occasions.”  The military judge granted the Government's request to bar the defense from putting on this evidence on the ground that “unless the witness has direct contact and observation of the Accused during the [charged] time frame, or the entire [charged] time frame, those are not alibi witnesses.”  United States v. Fuller, No. ACM 35058, slip op. at 5 (June 23, 2004)(emphasis added).

 

   However, as stated by the majority in Brewer, when the Government charges divers use over a period of time, a witness is not required to have direct and continuous contact with the accused over the entire charged period in order to testify regarding that contact.  Rather, a witness must have spent substantial and relevant time with the Appellant.  Thus, the military judge erred as a matter of law in rejecting Appellant’s alibi proffer.

 

With respect to the instructional issue, I adhere to my position in Brewer finding no error, in light of the content and totality of the instructions provided in Appellant's case.  As a result, in testing whether Appellant suffered material prejudice to a substantial right or not, I have considered only the error pertaining to the military judge′s exclusion of the defense witnesses.

 

In the context of this case, the error was constitutional in nature, because it prevented Appellant from putting on her defense that those persons who saw her most frequently over a substantial portion of the charged time frame had not seen her use cocaine.  In this case the scientific evidence indicated multiple uses of cocaine, up to five times per month, over a fifteen-month time period.  However, unlike the majority, I find that in the context of this case, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for the same reasons identified by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

 

Appellant was charged with one specification of use on divers occasions, which carried the same sentence exposure as if the Government had charged a single use.  The Government's evidence was overwhelming.  This was not a naked urinalysis case.  Rather the Government's evidence included the results of a urinalysis test as well as a hair sample analysis.  Moreover, Appellant took the stand and in the words of the Court of Criminal Appeals, “appellant’s contradictory and implausible explanation for having cocaine in her system was utterly unpersuasive.”  Fuller, No. ACM 35058, slip op. at 7.

 

   As a result, I agree with the majority’s legal analysis, but respectfully dissent as to result.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0233/NA.  U.S. v. George G. TAYLOR.  CCA 200200435.1/

No. 06-0711/AR.  U.S. v. Michael JANSEN.  CCA 20051138.

No. 06-0712/AR.  U.S. v. James C. SIRMANS.  CCA 20051018.

No. 06-0713/AF.  U.S. v. Jose L. CORTEZ.  CCA 35906.

No. 06-0714/AF.  U.S. v. Heidi F. ADCOCK.  CCA 36018.

No. 06-0715/AF.  U.S. v. Kelly S. ERICKSON.  CCA 35495.

No. 06-0716/AF.  U.S. v. Michael J. HENDRICKSON.  CCA S30653.

No. 06-0717/AF.  U.S. v. Jeremy C. MIDKIFF.  CCA S30891.

No. 06-0718/AF.  U.S. v. James B. THOMAS.  CCA 35804.

No. 06-0719/AF.  U.S. v. Omar H. VILLANUEVA.  CCA 36343.

No. 06-0720/AF.  U.S. v. Alexander L. YOUNG.  CCA S30652.

____________

 

1/  Second petition filed in this case.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-180

Friday, June 23, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0705/AF.  U.S. v. Edward L. WALLACE III.  CCA 36318.

No. 06-0706/AF.  U.S. v. Rodney C. WILLIAMS.  CCA S30754.

No. 06-0707/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew L. CHERNACK.  CCA 36346.

No. 06-0708/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew J. DEAN.  CCA 36200.

No. 06-0709/NA.  U.S. v. Andrew F. MARQUEZ.  CCA 200201852.

No. 06-0710/AR.  U.S. v. Robbie D. INFINGER.  CCA 20040621.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0628/AR.  U.S. v. Gary T. WODKA II.  CCA 20031090.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 24, 2006.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-179

Thursday, June 22, 2006

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 03-0538/MC.  U.S. v. Nathan T. OTTO.  CCA 200001460.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 03-0538/MC.  U.S. v. Nathan T. OTTO.  CCA 200001460.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0219/MC.  U.S. v. Scipio J. WILLIAMS.  CCA 200101854.  Review granted on the following issue specified by the Court:

 

WHETHER THE DELAY IN APPELLANT'S POST-TRIAL PROCESSING VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO A TIMELY REVIEW OF HIS COURT-MARTIAL.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0215/MC.  U.S. v. Dexter J. DANIELS.  CCA 200000835.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0704/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher L. HARRIS.  CCA 200500448.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0471/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick A. MONETTE.  CCA 20020088.  Appellant's motion for leave to file out of time a petition for reconsideration denied.

 

No. 06-0321/MC.  U.S. v. Timothy G. GILMORE.  CCA 200401106.  Appellant's motion to attach, submitted May 24, 2006, granted.

 

No. 06-0621/AR.  U.S. v. William H. MASCHEK.  CCA 20030064.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 21, 2006.

 

No. 06-0623/AR.  U.S. v. Willie K. EADDY.  CCA 20020143.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 20, 2006.

 

No. 06-0627/AR.  U.S. v. George L. HUBBARD.  CCA 20040778.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 20, 2006.

 

No. 06-8017/AF.  Lantz E. NAVE, Appellant, v. Colonel Nancy Paul, USAF, Military Judge and United States, Appellees.  CCA 2006-05.  Appellant's motion to stay proceedings denied.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-178

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0116/AF.  U.S. v. John E. CRAFTER.  CCA 35476.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE I FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE APPELLANT'S CONDUCT ALLEGED THEREIN DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SPECIFIED REGULATION.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 06-0291/NA.  U.S. v. David D. TATE.  CCA 200201202.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT VIOLATED RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 705(c) BY DENYING APPELLANT THE POST-TRIAL RIGHT TO SEEK CLEMENCY AND PAROLE.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0584/NA.  U.S. v. Daniel A. BAHIRU.  CCA 200201645.

No. 06-0607/AF.  U.S. v. William C. LEINART.  CCA S30870.

No. 06-0625/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher B. THORPE.  CCA 20051212.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-177

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0421/AR.  U.S. v. Travis E. BARNES.  CCA 20040767.

No. 06-0422/AR.  U.S. v. Moses L. HAMILTON.  CCA 20030574.

No. 06-0451/AR.  U.S. v. Jose A. ZABALA, Jr.  CCA 20040798.

No. 06-0515/AR.  U.S. v. Antonio D. SAINES.  CCA 20030059.

No. 06-0570/AF.  U.S. v. Robert W. HENRY.  CCA S30787.

No. 06-0588/AF.  U.S. v. Travis M. JOSEPH.  CCA S30855.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0702/AR.  U.S. v. Wilfredo HERNANDEZ.  CCA 20050392.

No. 06-0703/AR.  U.S. v. Kelvin G. KEY.  CCA 20030152.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 06-8016/NA.  Kevin R. SANFORD, Petitioner, v. United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent.  CCA 200600037.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to raise the matter asserted in the petition during the course of normal appellate review.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0127/MC.  U.S. v. Jeffrey G. TOOHEY.  CCA 200001621.  Appellant's motion to attach document granted.

 

No. 06-0321/MC.  U.S. v. Timothy G. GILMORE.  CCA 200401106.  Appellant's motion to attach, filed April 28, 2006, granted.

 

No. 06-0417/NA.  U.S. v. Joseph R. KAMELY.  CCA 200201248.  Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 06-0510/MC.  U.S. v. Jason A. FORREST.  CCA 200000133.  Appellee's motion to file out of time an answer to the supplement to petition for grant of review granted.

 

No. 06-0611/MC.  U.S. v. Isaac D. ROBERSON.  CCA 200301539.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 17, 2006.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-176

Monday, June 19, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0345/NA.  U.S. v. Jonathon GRADY.  CCA 200501264.

No. 06-0368/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher M. COLGAN.  CCA S30698.

No. 06-0369/AF.  U.S. v. Carl B. MUNFORD.  CCA S30508.

No. 06-0391/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew G. BARBER.  CCA 20051056.

No. 06-0404/AR.  U.S. v. Trevor A. DELGADO.  CCA 20020929.

No. 06-0433/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas B. ALLEN.  CCA 20050151.

No. 06-0456/AR.  U.S. v. Wesley J. PIMENTEL.  CCA 20050622.

No. 06-0457/AR.  U.S. v. Luis E. GOMEZ-GONZALEZ.  CCA 20021205.

No. 06-0531/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin J. MOCK.  CCA 20050947.

No. 06-0543/AF.  U.S. v. Dwayne C. DENNIS.  CCA 36132.

No. 06-0550/AF.  U.S. v. Josetta J. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA S30697.

No. 06-0558/AF.  U.S. v. Antonio C. COYL.  CCA S30677.

No. 06-0577/AR.  U.S. v. Alexis D. CRUZ-CAMACHO.  CCA 20051020.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0696/AF.  U.S. v. Codi R. COWARD.  CCA 35925.

No. 06-0697/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher J. ROSSI.  CCA 20040929.

No. 06-0698/AR.  U.S. v. James E. COMBS, III.  CCA 20050388.

No. 06-0699/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua D. PATTON.  CCA 20051047.

No. 06-0700/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan A. BROWN.  CCA 20050497.

No. 06-0701/AR.  U.S. v. Dean E. BODOH II.  CCA 20050984.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-175

Friday, June 16, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0695/AF.  U.S. v. Kevin E. PAXTON.  CCA 36092.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-174

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 06-0237/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan C. TAYLOR.  CCA 20040533.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSOLIDATE SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE II BECAUSE THE SPECIFICATIONS SEPARATELY CHARGE TWO STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE SAME SWORN STATEMENT TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF ONE INTERVIEW.

 

     In light of Appellee’s concession of this issue and United States v. Aubin, 62 M.J. 438 (C.A.A.F. 2006)(summary disposition), we consolidate specification 2 into specification 1 of Charge II as follows:

 

In that Private Ryan C. Taylor, U.S. Army, did, at or near

Fort Gordon, Georgia, on or about 4 March 2004, with intent to deceive, make to Military Police Officer, Sergeant Bradley J. Roehl, official statements, to wit:  “I do not know where my car is, I have not seen it since Monday,” and “No,” when asked, “Was anyone in the car with you?”, or words to that effect, which statements were totally false, and were then known by the said Private Ryan C. Taylor to be so false.

 

Because the underlying misconduct has not changed and the military judge considered the consolidated specifications to be one offense for sentencing purposes, we are satisfied that Appellant suffered no prejudice as to his sentence.

 

     The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals as to Charges I, III, IV, and V and the specifications thereuder, Charge II and specification 1 thereunder (as consolidated with specification 2), and the sentence is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0237/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan C. TAYLOR.  CCA 20040533.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0413/AR.  U.S. v. Francisco J. NUNEZ-FLORES.  CCA 20040278.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0690/AR.  U.S. v. Jeremy LAGERMANN.  CCA 20050542.

No. 06-0691/AR.  U.S. v. Jermaine J. FRANCIS.  CCA 20040428.

No. 06-0692/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy L.T. COLEMAN.  CCA 20040822.

No. 06-0693/MC.  U.S. v. Timothy L. CHRISTESSON.  CCA 200500349.

No. 06-0694/AR.  U.S. v. Angela M. RUIZ.  CCA 20020475.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-173

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0238/NA.  U.S. v. Richard C. FOSTER.  CCA 200301262.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT RULED THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT BECOME A PARTISAN ADVOCATE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE'S TREATMENT OF THE DEFENSE EXPERT DID NOT DENY APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0173/AF.  U.S. v. Edward A. RAASCH, Jr.  CCA 35717.

No. 06-0395/AR.  U.S. v. Neil M. COUILLARD.  CCA 20050226.

No. 06-0411/AR.  U.S. v. Leo J. JOHNSON, Jr.  CCA 20041304.

No. 06-0470/AR.  U.S. v. Tirrell A. WHITE.  CCA 20020726.

No. 06-0497/AR.  U.S. v. John H. ABLE.  CCA 20050224.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0687/MC.  U.S. v. Jesse C. SCOTT.  CCA 200300976.

No. 06-0688/MC.  U.S. v. Scott A. MCCOY.  CCA 200101209.

No. 06-0689/NA.  U.S. v. Arielcesar S. ANTONIO.  CCA 200500768.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 06-8013/NA.  Jessie A. QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. United States and Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Respondents.  CCA 9801632.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and Petitioner’s motions to attach, under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we note that Rule 4(b)(1) provides that “[a]bsent good cause, no such petition shall be filed unless relief has been sought in the appropriate Court of Criminal Appeals.”  Petitioner has not first sought relief at the lower court, and has made no showing of good cause.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is denied; and that said motions are denied as moot.  [See also INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 06-8017/AF.  Lantz E. NAVE, Appellant, v. Colonel Nancy Paul, USAF, Military Judge and United States, Appellees.  CCA 2006-05.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b).

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0526/MC.  U.S. v. Lavoid M. RENTAS.  CCA 200401427.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including July 5, 2006; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 06-0532/NA.  U.S. v. Hector A. COLEMAN.  CCA 200101009.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including July 19, 2006; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 06-0615/AF.  U.S. v. Patrick M. LEONARD, Jr.  CCA 35740.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 17, 2006.

 

No. 06-0620/MC.  U.S. v. Ryan J. SCAMAHORN.  CCA 200201583.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 19, 2006.

 

No. 06-8013/NA.  U.S. v. Jessie A. QUINTANILLA.  CCA 9801632.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-172

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 03-0256/AR.  U.S. v. Jacob M. BOWLEY.  CCA 20000093.  On further consideration of the granted issue, 59 M.J. 136 (C.A.A.F. 2003), in light of United States v. Christian, 63 M.J. 205 (C.A.A.F. 2006), and Manual for Courts-Martial, United States pt. IV, para. 43.e.(2)(1998 ed.)(MCM), we hold that the maximum confinement punishment for the offense of unpremeditated murder committed on August 21, 1999, was life without parole.

 

     At the time of Appellant’s offenses, the MCM provided that the punishment for unpremeditated murder was “such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.”  MCM pt. IV, para. 43.e.(2).  Because a life sentence is in fact a lesser punishment than death, confinement for life was a maximum punishment authorized by this provision.  See United States v. Stebbins, 61 M.J. 361, 366 (C.A.A.F. 2005).  There is, therefore, no conflict between the MCM maximum confinement sentence for the offense of unpremeditated murder and the congressionally authorized confinement sentence of life without parole in Article 56a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 856a (2000).

 

In this case, the military judge properly advised the Appellant of this maximum confinement punishment of life without parole.  Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0426/AR.  U.S. v. Terry L. VANWEORT, Jr.  CCA 20040882.

No. 06-0473/AF.  U.S. v. David R. HABER.  CCA S30811.

No. 06-0479/AF.  U.S. v. Gregory S. RADER.  CCA 36185.

No. 06-0500/AF.  U.S. v. Nathaniel S. LAYNE.  CCA 36233.

No. 06-0508/AR.  U.S. v. David T. WARHOL.  CCA 20050956.

No. 06-0537/AR.  U.S. v. Benjamin J. CLARK.  CCA 20050878.

No. 06-0540/NA.  U.S. v. Stephen T. JONES.  CCA 200401343.

No. 06-0560/AF.  U.S. v. Scott C. LOVETT.  CCA S30796.

No. 06-0564/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon B. WOODARD.  CCA 20050548.

No. 06-0569/AF.  U.S. v. George HOFELE.  CCA 36003.

No. 06-0580/NA.  U.S. v. Steven H. GRAVIS.  CCA 200401512.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0686/AR.  U.S. v. Samuel L. DEWITT.  CCA 20031281.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0552/MC.  U.S. v. William R. HUMPHREY.  CCA 200200787.  Appellant's motion to attach granted.

 

No. 06-0004/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher M. LUCAS.  CCA 200300760.  Appellant's motion to attach granted.

 

No. 06-0306/MC.  U.S. v. Jason A. PHILLIPS.  CCA 200300969.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including June 23, 2006; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 06-0591/AR.  U.S. v. Harvey A. GARDINIER II.  CCA 20020427.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 10, 2006.

 

No. 06-0594/AR.  U.S. v. Jaime PEREZ.  CCA 20020314.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 12, 2006.

 

No. 06-0609/AR.  U.S. v. Todd G. HERMAN.  CCA 20031298.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 12, 2006.

 

No. 06-0617/AR.  U.S. v. Luis D. SANCHEZ.  CCA 20010943.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to July 13, 2006.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-171

Monday, June 12, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0677/AR.  U.S. v. Steven M. DIXON.  CCA 20051182.

No. 06-0678/AR.  U.S. v. Breon D. TAYLOR.  CCA 20050343.

No. 06-0679/AR.  U.S. v. Fikret HAJDAREVIC.  CCA 20060090.

No. 06-0680/AR.  U.S. v. Clarence L. JOYNER.  CCA 20051486.

No. 06-0681/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher D. TRAVIS.  CCA 20050579.

No. 06-0682/NA.  U.S. v. Fernando CEPEDA.  CCA 200400992.

No. 06-0683/NA.  U.S. v. George S. JOHNS.  CCA 200301518.

No. 06-0684/MC.  U.S. v. Marquell SUTTON.  CCA 200200406.

No. 06-0685/NA.  U.S. v. Larry L. PHILLIPS.  CCA 200501342.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-170

Friday, June 09, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0398/AF.  U.S. v. Mellissa A. FARLEY.  CCA S30747.

No. 06-0469/AR.  U.S. v. Robert J. WINGO.  CCA 20030172.

No. 06-0478/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy D. PIERCE.  CCA 35914.

No. 06-0504/AR.  U.S. v. Kevin L. RICHMOND.  CCA 20041117.

No. 06-0566/AF.  U.S. v. Eric A. MARQUES.  CCA 35980.

No. 06-0583/AR.  U.S. v. Jamaal J. MUTRIE.  CCA 20050523.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0676/NA.  U.S. v. Paul G. WUNSCH.  CCA 200501420.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0503/NA.  U.S. v. Sean A. WILSON.  CCA 200102056.

Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including June 23, 2006; and that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 06-0518/AR.  U.S. v. Corey L. ROBINSON.  CCA 20040990.

Appellant's motion for leave to file supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 06-0586/AR.  U.S. v. Roy D. JACKSON.  CCA 20050716.

Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 7, 2006.

 

No. 06-0590/AR.  U.S. v. Shawn K. AUGER.  CCA 20030796.

Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 10, 2006.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 06-6001/NA.  U.S. v. Charles W. DAVIS.  CCA 9600585.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-169

Thursday, June 08, 2006

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0350/MC.  U.S. v. Whitman D. WALLACE.  CCA 200001148.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0350/MC.  U.S. v. Whitman D. WALLACE.  CCA 200001148.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 06-0319/MC.  U.S. v. Jason L. TAYLOR.  CCA 200202366.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT ASSERT THE HUSBAND-WIFE PRIVILEGE OVER CONFIDENTIAL MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS BECAUSE ADULTERY IS A CRIME AGAINST THE SPOUSE FOR PURPOSES OF M.R.E. 504(c)(2)(A).

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0675/MC.  U.S. v. Rodolfo FLORES.  CCA 200400701.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-168

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 06-0109/NA.  U.S. v. Christopher B. DURFEE.  CCA 9901453.  Review granted on the following issue raised by appellate defense counsel:

 

I.   WHETHER APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A TIMELY APPELLATE REVIEW WAS VIOLATED WHEN IT TOOK MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS FROM THE DATE APPELLANT WAS SENTENCED UNTIL THE DATE THE LOWER COURT ISSUED ITS OPINION GRANTING RELIEF.

 

And the following issue specified by the Court:

 

II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING "FORFEITURE OF TWO-THIRDS PAY PER MONTH FOR ANY PERIOD OF REMAINING ACTIVE SERVICE AFTER THE DATE OF TRIAL" WHEN R.C.M. 1003(b)(2) PROVIDES THAT "[U]NLESS A TOTAL FORFEITURE IS ADJUDGED, A SENTENCE TO FORFEITURE SHALL STATE THE EXACT AMOUNT IN WHOLE DOLLARS TO BE FORFEITED EACH MONTH AND THE NUMBER OF MONTHS THE FORFEITURES WILL LAST."

 

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

 

No. 06-0178/AF.  U.S. v. Kirk V. BRIGGS.  CCA 35123.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST CAPTAIN H.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0015/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth J. MACLEAN.  CCA 20030915.

No. 06-0139/AF.  U.S. v. Paul C. KELLER III.  CCA 35736.

No. 06-0392/AR.  U.S. v. Damian A. CHERRY.  CCA 20041162.

No. 06-0396/AR.  U.S. v. Brett E. VILLALOBOS, Jr.  CCA 20050921.

No. 06-0414/AR.  U.S. v. Luis A. JUSTINIANO.  CCA 20041313.

No. 06-0435/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew C. THOMPSON.  CCA 20031083.

No. 06-0452/AR.  U.S. v. Gilbert G. PAGDILAO.  CCA 20040693.

No. 06-0486/AR.  U.S. v. Wayne S. GRIMM, Jr.  CCA 20051057.

No. 06-0489/AR.  U.S. v. Lucas W. STIMPSON.  CCA 20040060.

No. 06-0517/AR.  U.S. v. Kimberly S. MURPHY.  CCA 20031296.

No. 06-0522/AF.  U.S. v. Brian N. BERG.  CCA 35967.

No. 06-0529/AR.  U.S. v. Gavin W. GUTHRIE.  CCA 20050405.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0523/NA.  U.S. v. Rocky R. VOGT.  CCA 200401217.1/

No. 06-0672/AR.  U.S. v. Brendan G. TOMPKINS.  CCA 20051144.

No. 06-0673/AF.  U.S. v. Charles L. CRAWFORD.  CCA 35762.

No. 06-0674/AF.  U.S. v. Richard J. KOLB.  CCA 36230.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 06-8016/NA.  Kevin R. SANFORD, Petitioner, v. United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent.  CCA 200600037.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition was filed under Rule 27(a) on June 6, 2006, and placed on the docket this date.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 06-8014/NA.  Stacie SOWELL, Appellant, v. Lewis T. Booker, Jr., CDR, JAGC, USN, Military Judge, Appellee.  CCA 9901777.  On consideration of Appellant’s requests for a stay of proceedings, motion to attach, motion for clarification, and motion to withdraw writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said motion to withdraw the writ-appeal petition is granted; and that said requests to stay proceedings, motion to attach, and motion for clarification are denied as moot.  [See also INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS this date.]

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0688/NA.  Stacie SOWELL, Appellant, v. Lewis T. Booker, Jr., CDR, JAGC, USN, Military Judge, Appellee.  CCA 9901777.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

____________

 

1/  Second petition filed in this case.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-167

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 05-0563/MC.  U.S. v. Kevin L. SIMON.  CCA 200500094.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER ERROR OCCURRED IN APPELLANT'S CASE WHEN APPELLANT LACKS THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND AND COOPERATE INTELLIGENTLY IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 1203(c)(5) AND WHEN NO INQUIRY WAS MADE INTO WHETHER APPELLANT WAS CAPABLE TO ASSIST IN HIS DEFENSE PURSUANT TO RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 706.

 

II.  WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS INITIAL APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH THE CLIENT, FAILED TO REASONABLY INVESTIGATE HIS CASE, AND FAILED TO RAISE POST-TRIAL DELAY AT THE LOWER COURT.

 

III. WHETHER THE UNREASONABLE DELAY CAUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN FULFILLING THE NON-DISCRETIONARY AND MECHANICAL TASK OF FORWARDING A RECORD OF TRIAL FOR APPELLATE REVIEW VIOLATED THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY POST-TRIAL REVIEW.

 

     Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 06-0316/AR.  U.S. v. David J. AGUILAR.  CCA 20050491.

No. 06-0337/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas C. LOVETTE.  CCA 20040108.

No. 06-0462/AF.  U.S. v. Jeffrey T. HRINDA.  CCA 35987.

No. 06-0465/AF.  U.S. v. Daniel F. THEISON.  CCA 36012.

No. 06-0468/AF.  U.S. v. Tyler T. WILLIAMS.  CCA S30623.

No. 06-0481/AF.  U.S. v. Amanda D. SCHMIDT.  CCA 36063.

No. 06-0513/AF.  U.S. v. Brian N. AREVALVO.  CCA 36001.

No. 06-0514/AF.  U.S. v. Kandi N. MCCAIN.  CCA S30798.

No. 06-0521/AR.  U.S. v. Francisco GARCIA.  CCA 20050425.

No. 06-0530/AR.  U.S. v. Damaal R. COOK.  CCA 20050784.

No. 06-0552/AF.  U.S. v. Louise J. SMITH.  CCA S30859.

No. 06-0553/AF.  U.S. v. Gerardo R. SIMON, Jr.  CCA S30886.

No. 06-0589/MC.  U.S. v. Christopher E. CANTRELL.  CCA 200501041.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 05-0393/NA.  U.S. v. Scott C. JONES.  CCA 200300214.  Appellee's motion to dismiss petition for grant of review granted.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0665/AR.  U.S. v. Terrance R. DOGAN.  CCA 20020453.

No. 06-0666/AR.  U.S. v. Wagner P. DACOSTA.  CCA 20021327.

No. 06-0667/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby J. ASHABRANNER, Jr.  CCA 20050035.

No. 06-0668/AR.  U.S. v. Shakitta L. UPSHUR.  CCA 20050816.

No. 06-0669/AR.  U.S. v. Glenn C. MENDOZA.  CCA 20040443.

No. 06-0670/AR.  U.S. v. Vercie S. JOHNSON, II.  CCA 20030839.

No. 06-0671/MC.  U.S. v. James R. MILLS.  CCA 200401721.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 06-8015/NA.  Bryan BLACK, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee.  On consideration of the writ-appeal petition and Appellant’s motion to stay proceedings, said motion is denied; and the petition is hereby denied without prejudice to Appellant’s right to raise the matter asserted in the petition during the course of normal appellate review.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0616/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew R. HOAGLAND.  CCA S30795.  Appellant's motion to submit petition for grant of review out of time granted.  Appellant will file a supplement to the petition on or before July 6, 2006.  Appellee may file an answer to Appellant’s supplement within thirty days thereafter.

 


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-166

Monday, June 05, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0664/NA.  U.S. v. Tarold L. TAYLOR.  CCA 200201675.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 06-8015/NA.  Bryan BLACK, Appellant v. U.S., Appellee.  CCA 200600043.  Writ-appeal petition for review of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decision on application for extraordinary relief filed under Rule 27(b) on June 2, 2006, and placed on the docket on this date.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0581/AR.  U.S. v. Kelvin S. LEWIS.  CCA 20050775.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to July 3, 2006.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 04-0698/MC.  U.S. v. Javier A. MORENO.  CCA 200100715.

No. 05-0300/NA.  U.S. v. Henry A. MAGYARI.  CCA 9801499.

 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-165

Friday, June 02, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0663/AR.  U.S. v. Chance O. MCDONALD.  CCA 20041081.




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 06-164

Thursday, June 01, 2006

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 06-0662/AR.  U.S. v. Emir B. ROBATEAU.  CCA 20030428.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 06-0408/NA.  U.S. v. Leonard Y. DURAN.  CCA 200000781.  On consideration of Appellant’s motions to attach, Appellee’s motion to attach, Appellee’s motion to withdraw pleading, Appellant’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of the petition for grant of review, and Appellant’s motion to remand, and upon reconsideration of Appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that Appellant’s motions to attach are granted; Appellee’s motion to attach is granted; Appellee’s motion to withdraw pleading is granted; Appellant’s motion to reconsider the dismissal of the petition for grant of review is granted; the Court’s order dated April 20, 2006 is set aside; Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review is denied; Appellant’s motion to remand is denied as moot; and, Appellee will file an answer to Appellant’s supplement to the petition for grant of review on or before July 3, 2006.

 


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