UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-183
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0664/AF.
No.
07-0665/AF.
No.
07-0666/AF.
No.
07-0667/AF.
No.
07-0668/AF.
No.
07-0669/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0870/AR.
No.
06-0934/NA.
No.
07-0585/AR.
No.
07-0600/NA.
No.
07-0601/MC.
No.
07-0608/AR.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 07-182
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0229/NA.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE DENIED APPELLANT'S CHALLENGE
FOR CAUSE AGAINST LIEUTENANT
[B]
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0412/AR.
WHETHER THE ARMY
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING
APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I AND TO
CHARGE I,
FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT, PROVIDENT WHEN THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION WAS
NOT, IN
FACT, FALSE.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0553/NA.
Review
granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE
ACTION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
IN AFFIRMING A CLAUSE 2 (SERVICE DISCREDITING CONDUCT) OFFENSE UNDER
ARTICLE
134, UCMJ, AFTER IT FOUND CHARGED CLAUSE 3
(CRIME AND
OFFENSE NOT CAPITAL) OFFENSE TO BE IMPROVIDENT, ADDED AN ELEMENT TO THE
OFFENSE
IN CONTRAVENTION OF APPRENDI v.
NEW JERSEY,
530 U.S. 466 (2000), JONES v. UNITED STATES, 526 U.S. 227 (1999),AND SCHMUCK v. UNITED STATES, 489
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 07-0121/MC.
No. 07-0306/NA.
No. 07-0356/AR.
No. 07-0371/AR.
No. 07-0390/MC.
No. 07-0423/AF.
No. 07-0470/AR.
No. 07-0478/CG.
No. 07-0481/AR.
No. 07-0488/AF.
No. 07-0493/AF.
No. 07-0505/AF.
No. 07-0520/AR.
No. 07-0121/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 07-0658/MC.
No. 07-0659/AR.
No. 07-0660/AR.
No. 07-0661/AR.
No. 07-0662/AR.
No. 07-0663/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-181
Tuesday,
June 26, 2007
APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 06-0907/AF.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 06-0907/AF.
No. 07-0407/AR.
WHETHER
APPELLANT'S PLEAS TO ALL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS
ARE NOT PROVIDENT BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE
DEFENSE OF
LACK OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY TO APPELLANT, DID NOT SATISFY HERSELF
THAT
COUNSEL HAD EVALUATED THE VIABILITY OF THE DEFENSE, AND DID NOT ELICIT
FACTS
FROM APPELLANT THAT NEGATED THE DEFENSE.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0369/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 07-0657/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 07-0028/MC.
No. 07-0096/AR.
No. 07-0286/AR.
No. 07-0371/AR.
No. 07-0383/NA.
No. 07-0478/CG.
No. 07-0485/AR.
No. 07-0496/NA.
No. 07-0510/NA.
No. 07-0526/NA.
No. 07-0559/AR.
No. 07-0567/MC.
No. 07-0574/AR.
No. 07-0576/AR.
No. 07-0584/AR.
No. 07-0587/AR.
Appellant's
motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of
review
granted to
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-180
Monday,
June 25, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0330/AR.
No.
07-0448/AR.
No.
07-0461/AF.
No.
07-0502/NA.
No.
07-0506/AF.
No.
07-0651/AR.
No.
07-0652/AR.
No.
07-0653/AF.
No.
07-0654/AF.
No.
07-0655/AF.
No.
07-0656/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-179
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0313/AF.
No.
07-0434/AF.
No.
07-0438/AR.
No.
07-0459/AF.
No.
07-0606/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0648/AF.
No.
07-0649/AF.
No.
07-0650/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-178
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0285/AR.
No.
07-0329/AR.
No.
07-0345/AR.
No.
07-0357/AR.
No.
07-0375/AF.
No.
07-0409/AF.
No.
07-0422/AF.
No.
07-0428/AR.
No.
07-0456/AR.
No.
07-0457/AF.
No.
07-0486/AR.
No.
07-0487/AF.
No.
07-0513/AF.
No.
07-0533/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0643/AR.
No.
07-0644/AR.
No.
07-0645/AR.
No.
07-0646/AR.
No.
07-0647/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
06-0611/MC.
No.
06-0657/AF.
ORDER IN RE TERM OF COURT
It is by the
Court, this 21st day of June 2007,
ORDERED:
That the Term of
Court policy, 27 M.J. 412 (C.M.A. 1988), will
apply as follows with respect to the current term of Court and
succeeding
terms:
(a) the current Term of Court will
end on
(b) the Term of Court beginning on
“October 2007- August 2008 Term of Court (Transition)”; and
(c) the Term of Court beginning on
beginning on September 1 of each year
and ending on August
31 of the following calendar year, and will be
designated as the September Term of
Court of the year in
which the term begins.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-177
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
On further
consideration of the granted issue, 64 M.J.
401 (C.A.A.F.), and in view of this Court’s
decision in United
States v. Rankin, 64 M.J. 348 (C.A.A.F.) 2007), it is ordered that the decision
of the
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby
affirmed.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 06-0833/AF.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO SUPPRESS
APPELLANT'S CONFESSION WHERE THE CONFESSION WAS NOT FREELY AND
VOLUNTARILY
GIVEN.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION BY DENYING THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A
FORENSICALLY-QUALIFIED
EXPERT CONSULTANT.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF
UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT AND BAD CHARACTER IN VIOLATION OF MILITARY RULE OF
EVIDENCE 404(b).
Briefs
will
be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0397/AF.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN ADMISSION OF RC'S STATEMENTS
TO THE REGISTERED NURSE AND SOCIAL WORKER AS MEDICAL EXCEPTIONS TO
HEARSAY.
Briefs
will
be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No.
07-0541/CG.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0641/AR.
No.
07-0642/AR.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No.
06-0934/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 03-0151/MC.
No. 04-0313/AF.
No. 06-0532/NA.
No. 07-0346/AR.
No. 07-0444/AF.
No. 07-0473/NA.
No. 07-0474/NA.
No. 07-0475/NA.
No. 07-0476/NA.
No. 07-0562/AR.
No. 07-0569/AR.
No. 07-0571/NA.
No. 07-0598/NA.
No. 07-0620/NA.
No. 07-5002/AR.
MANDATES
ISSUED
No.
06-0600/MC.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-176
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-175
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0636/AR.
No.
07-0637/NA.
No.
07-0638/AR.
No.
07-0639/MC.
No.
07-0640/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-174
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0114/AR.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN HIS FINDINGS OF FACT OR
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0135/MC.
WHETHER
THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT TWO VIRGINIA STATE FORENSIC
LABORATORY
REPORTS WERE NOT TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY UNDER CRAWFORD v.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0194/AF.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DEFENSE MOTION TO
SUPPRESS THE
RESULTS OF THE SEARCH OF APPELLANT'S PERSONAL COMPUTER IN LIGHT OF
APPELLANT'S
REVOCATION OF CONSENT, HIS SUBSEQUENT ACQUIESCENCE TO PRESSURE BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE INEVITABLE DISCOVERY
DOCTRINE TO
THE FACTS. SEE
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0278/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0635/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-173
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0363/NA.
WHETHER
THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN AMENDING THE
SPECIFICATION OF
THE CHARGE FROM A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ,
CLAUSE 3 (CRIME AND OFFENSE NOT CAPITAL) TO A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134,
UCMJ, CLAUSE 1 (CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD
ORDER AND DISCIPLINE)
AND CLAUSE 2 (SERVICE
DISCREDITING CONDUCT) ADDED ELEMENTS TO THE OFFENSE IN CONTRAVENTION OF
APPRENDI v. NEW
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0202/AR.
No.
07-0282/AF.
No.
07-0349/AR.
No.
07-0391/AR.
No.
07-0501/AR.
No.
07-0504/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0907/AF.
No.
07-0354/AR.
No.
07-0477/AR.
No.
07-0479/MC.
No.
07-0518/MC.
No.
07-0544/AR.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 07-172
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0199/AR.
WHETHER
SENDING, VIA A CHAT SESSION, A HYPERLINK TO A YAHOO! BRIEFCASE
CONTAINING
IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CONSTITUTES KNOWINGLY AND WRONGFULLY
DISTRIBUTING
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH THE INTERNET, IN
VIOLATION OF
18 U.S.C. SECTION 2252A(a)(1)
OR CLAUSE 1 OR 2 OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
WHETHER
UTILIZING A PUBLIC COMPUTER TO VIEW IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
CONTAINED IN A
YAHOO! BRIEFCASE, AND ACCESSED VIA A HYPERLINK, SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTS A
CONVICTION
FOR KNOWINGLY AND WRONGFULLY POSSESSING ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY
IN VIOLATION OF CLAUSE 1 OR 2 OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0633/AR.
No. 07-0634/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-171
Tuesday,
June 12, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0631/AR.
No.
07-0632/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-170
Monday,
June
11, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0442/AR.
No.
07-0450/AR.
No.
07-0455/AR.
No.
07-0458/AF.
No.
07-0463/AF.
No.
07-0465/AF.
No.
07-0492/AF.
No.
07-0494/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0622/AR.
No.
07-0623/AR.
No.
07-0624/AF.
No.
07-0625/AF.
No.
07-0626/AF.
No.
07-0627/AF.
No.
07-0628/AF.
No.
07-0629/AF.
No.
07-0630/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-169
Friday,
June 8, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0323/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-168
Thursday,
June 7, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0627/MC.
No.
07-0621/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 07-8013/CG.
Lloyd E. VICKREY, Jr., Petitioner v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0869/MC.
No.
07-0323/AF.
No.
07-0531/AR.
No.
07-0536/AR.
No.
07-0538/NA.
No.
07-0555/AR.
________________________
* Second petition
filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-167
Wednesday,
June 6, 2007
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 07-0242/NA.
WHETHER
THE PROVISIONS IN APPELLANT'S PRETRIAL AGREEMENT THAT WAIVE: 1) THE
PROTECTIONS
OF ARTICLE 63, UCMJ, AND 2) CONSIDERATION FOR CLEMENCY AND PAROLE
BEFORE THE
NAVAL CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ARE UNENFORCEABLE.
Paragraphs
7 and 8 of the pretrial agreement between Appellant and the convening
authority
are void. The balance of the agreement
may be enforced. The decision of the
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to the
findings
and the sentence is affirmed. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR
REVIEW
this date.]
No. 07-0339/NA.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0028/MC.
IN
VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT A MILITARY JUDGE IS PRESUMED TO KNOW AND
APPLY THE
LAW CORRECTLY, IN A CASE IN WHICH THE JUDGE SITTING ALONE, EVALUATED
THE
APPELLANT'S CREDIBILITY BASED UPON TWO SPECIFICATIONS LATER DISMISSED
ON
APPEAL, DID THAT DISMISSAL CREATE IMPROPER SPILLOVER IN THE JUDGE'S
CREDIBILITY
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE APPELLANT'S
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0173/AR.
DID
THE MILITARY JUDGE, IN GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
APPELLANT'S CIVILIAN COUNSEL ON THE BASIS OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
THE ETHICS
IN GOVERNMENT ACT (18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2)), DENY THE APPELLANT HIS SIXTH
AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO CIVILIAN COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE?
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0242/NA.
No. 07-0339/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0171/MC.
No.
07-0182/AR.
No.
07-0405/AR.
No.
07-0449/AR.
No.
07-0491/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0616/AR.
No.
07-0617/AR.
No.
07-0618/AR.
No.
07-0619/AR.
No.
07-0620/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
07-0101/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-166
Tuesday,
June 5, 2007
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 06-0745/AR.
No. 07-0010/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 06-0745/AR.
No. 07-0010/AR.
No. 07-0067/MC.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S PLEA TO
UNPREMEDITATED MURDER
UNDER ARTICLE 118(3), UCMJ, WHERE EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED BY BOTH
APPELLANT AND
AN EXPERT THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, APPELLANT DID NOT KNOW THAT
HIS
ACTIONS WOULD CAUSE BODILY HARM OR DEATH.
WHETHER
APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS
COUNSEL
ADVISED HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY, IMPROVIDENTLY AND AGAINST HIS WISHES.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0085/MC.
IN
LIGHT OF CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), WAS
APPELLANT
DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSER WHEN THE
MILITARY
JUDGE ALLOWED MP TO TESTIFY FROM A REMOTE LOCATION VIA ONE-WAY
CLOSED-CIRCUIT
TELEVISION?
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 07-0148/AR.
WHETHER
THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN AMENDING SPECIFICATIONS
2 AND 3
OF CHARGE I FROM VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, CLAUSE 3 (CRIMES AND
OFFENSES
NOT CAPITAL) TO VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, CLAUSE 2 (SERVICE
DISCREDITING
CONDUCT) ADDS AN ELEMENT TO THE OFFENSES IN CONTRAVENTION OF APPRENDI
v. NEW
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
06-0839/NA.
No.
07-0163/AF.
No.
07-0203/AR.
No.
07-0251/NA.
No.
07-0317/AR.
No.
07-0418/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0614/AR.
No.
07-0615/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0600/MC.
No.
06-0950/AR.
No.
07-0102/AR.
No.
07-0211/AR.
No.
07-0253/NA.
No.
07-0316/NA.
No.
07-0385/NA.
No.
07-0435/AR.
No.
07-0525/AR.
No.
07-0535/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-165
Monday,
June 4, 2007
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0105/NA.
WHERE
THE SERVICE COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE SPLIT ON WHETHER THE WALLACE-ALLBERY
GAMBLER'S DEFENSE APPLIES TO WORTHLESS CHECK OFFENSES PROSECUTED UNDER
ARTICLE
123a, UCMJ, DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DEFENSE
APPLIES ONLY
TO WORTHLESS CHECK OFFENSES PROSECUTED UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, BUT NOT
TO WORTHLESS
CHECK OFFENSES PROSECUTED UNDER ARTICLE 123a, UCMJ?
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S
GUILTY PLEAS
TO VIOLATING ARTICLE 123a, UCMJ, WITHOUT RESOLVING WHETHER APPELLANT
HAD A
PARTIAL MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE AS A RESULT OF HIS DIAGNOSIS AS A
PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLER.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0611/AF.
No.
07-0612/AR.
No.
07-0613/MC.
RULES CHANGES
Upon
careful consideration of certain proposed changes to the Rules of
Practice and
Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which
were
presented to and reviewed by the Rules Advisory Committee of the United
States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and thereafter published in the
Federal
Register for comment, it is ordered that effective August 1, 2007, Rule
24 is
amended as provided in the attachment to this order, except that the
provisions
of Rule 24(f)(1)(D)-(F) will take effect on July 1, 2008.
During the period from August 1, 2007 to July
1, 2008, compliance with the provisions of Rule 24(f)(1)(D)-(F)
may be accomplished by including a list of items stated in those
sections to
which appellant or petitioner wishes to direct the Court’s attention.
(a) Form and content. All briefs
shall conform to the printing, copying, and style requirements of Rule
37,
shall be legible, and shall be substantially as follows:
IN THE UNITED
STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED
FORCES
UNITED
STATES,
)
(Appellee) )
(Appellant) )
BRIEF
ON BEHALF
(Respondent)) OF
(APPELLANT,
v.
)
APPELLEE, ETC.)
______________________ )
(Full
typed name, rank, )
Crim.App. Dkt. No. ______
&
service of accused) )
(Appellant) )
USCA Dkt. No. ________
(Appellee) )
(Petitioner) )
[See Rule
37(c)(1)]
[Set forth, in a concise statement, each issue
granted review by the Court, raised in the
certificate for review or mandatory review
case, or presented in the petition for extraordinary relief,
writ-appeal
petition, or petition for new trial.
Issues presented will be set forth in upper case letters.]
[Set forth the statutory basis of the Court
of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction and the statutory basis for this
Court’s
jurisdiction.]
[Set forth a concise chronology, including
all relevant dates, to include: (A) the
results of the trial; (B) actions of the intermediate reviewing
authorities and
the Court of Criminal Appeals; (C) the disposition of a petition for
reconsideration or rehearing, if filed; and (D) any
other pertinent information regarding the proceedings, including,
where applicable, the date the
petition for review was granted.]
[Set forth
a concise statement of the facts of the case material to the issue or
issues
presented, including specific page references to each relevant
portion
of the record of trial.Answers may adopt the appellant’s or
petitioner’s
statement of facts if there is no dispute, may state additional facts,
or, if
there is a dispute, may restate the facts as they appear from the
appellee’s or
respondent’s viewpoint. The repetition
of uncontroverted matters is not desired.]
References to the
Record
References to the parts of the record
contained in the Joint Appendix filed with the appellant’s brief must
be to the
pages of the Joint Appendix.
[Each
brief and answer shall contain a summary of argument, suitably
paragraphed to
correspond to each issue presented. The
summary should be a succinct but accurate and clear condensation of the
arguments made in the body of the brief.]
[Discuss briefly the point of law
presented, citing and quoting such authorities as are deemed pertinent. The
argument must also include for each issue presented a statement of the
applicable standard of review. The
standard of review may appear in the discussion of each issue or under
a
separate heading.]
[State the relief sought as to each issue
presented, for example, reversal of the Court of
Criminal
Appeals decision and dismissal of the charges, grant of a new
trial, the
extraordinary relief sought, etc. No
particular form of language is required, so long as the brief concludes
with a
clear prayer for specific Court action.]
__________________________
(Signature of counsel)
__________________________
(Typed name of counsel)
__________________________
(Address of counsel)
__________________________
(Telephone no. of counsel)
I certify that a copy of the foregoing was
[delivered] (or) [mailed-specify class]
(or) [delivered to-specify the name of
the third-party commercial carrier-for delivery and
specify within how many days delivery will be effected] to the
Court and [delivered] (or) [mailed-specify
class] (or) [delivered to-specify the
name of the third-party
commercial carrier-for delivery and
specify within how many days delivery will be effected]
(or) [transmitted by electronic means with the consent of the
counsel being served] to
________________
____________________________
on ____________________________.
(email or facsimile
no.)
(date)
Where
more than one counsel or party is being served, the certificate should
specify
how each party or counsel was served.
__________________________
(Typed name and signature)
___________________________
(Address and telephone no.)
(b)
Page limitations. Unless
otherwise authorized by order of the Court or by motion of a party
granted by
the Court (see Rule 30), or by Rule 24(c), the page limitations
for
briefs filed with the Court, not including appendices, shall be as
follows:
(1)
Briefs
of the appellants/petitioners shall not exceed 30 pages;
(2)
Answers
of the appellees/respondents shall not exceed 30 pages;
(3)
Replies
of the appellants/petitioners shall not exceed 15 pages.
(c)
Type-volume limitations.
(1) A brief of
the appellants/petitioners and an
answer of the appellees/respondents is acceptable if:
(2) A reply is
acceptable if it contains no more
than half of the type-volume specified in Rule 24(c)(1).
(3) Headings,
footnotes, and quotations count toward
the word and line limitations. The
index, table of cases, statutes, and other authorities, the appendix
and any
certificates of counsel do not count toward the limitation.
(d)
Certificate of Compliance.
A brief submitted under Rule 24(c) must
include a certificate stating that the brief complies with the
type-volume
limitation and Rule 37. The person
preparing the certificate may rely on the word or line count of the
word-processing system used to prepare the brief. The
certificate must state either:
(i)
the number of words in the brief; or
(ii)
the number of lines of monospaced
type in the brief.
(e) Form of
Certificate of Compliance.
CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE
WITH RULE 24(d)
(1)
This brief
complies with the type-volume limitation of Rule
24(d) because:
[principal
brief may not exceed 14,000 words or 1,300 lines; reply or amicus brief
may not
exceed 7,000 words or 650 lines; line count can be used only with
monospaced
type]
|
|
This brief contains ____________ [state the number of]
words,
or
|
|
This brief contains ____________ [state the number of]
lines of text.
2.
This brief complies with the typeface and
type style requirements of Rule 37 because:
[12-point font
must be used
with monospaced typeface, such as Courier or Courier New]
|
|
This brief has been prepared in a
monospaced
typeface using
________________________________
[state name and
version of word processing
program,
e.g.,
Microsoft Word Version 2000 with
__________________________
[state number of characters per inch
and name
of
type style].
/s/
______________________________________________________
Attorney
for _____________________________________________
Dated:
__________________
(f) Joint
Appendix. The appellant or petitioner
shall be
responsible for filing eight copies of a Joint Appendix, which shall be
a
separate document filed contemporaneously with the brief.
(1)
Contents. The Joint Appendix
shall contain:
(A)
a
copy of the
decision of
the Court of Criminal Appeals;
(B)
copies of
unpublished
opinions cited in the brief of the appellant or petitioner; the
appellee or
respondent will include copies of unpublished opinions cited in its
brief as an
attachment to its brief;
(C)
relevant extracts
of rules
and regulations;
(D)
relevant
docket
entries from
the proceeding below;
(E) relevant portions of
the pleadings, charges, findings from the proceeding below; and
(F) other parts of the
record of trial to which the parties wish to direct the Court’s
attention set
out in chronological order.
(2)
Format.
The Joint Appendix will be produced on 8 ½ by 11 inch white
paper, be
bound in a manner that is secure and does not obscure the text, and
will permit
the contents to lie reasonably flat when open.
The cover must be white and contain the caption of the case and
docket
number. The cover shall be followed by a
table of contents. Pages in the Joint
Appendix shall be sequentially numbered in a manner that does not
obscure any
page numbers reflected in the record of trial.
If the Joint Appendix consists of less than 100 pages, it may be
reproduced by single-sided or double-sided copying.
If it consists of 100 pages or more, the Joint
Appendix shall use double-sided copying.
Classified
material or matters under seal that are to be included in a Joint
Appendix
shall be submitted in a separate volume, clearly designated as
containing
classified or sealed material.
Classified material will be handled in accordance with Rule 12.
(3)
Deadline. Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, the
Joint Appendix shall be filed contemporaneously with the brief of the
appellant
or petitioner. If a cross-appeal is
filed, a single Joint Appendix shall be filed for both appeals subject
to a
briefing schedule established by the Clerk.
The appellant or petitioner shall serve one copy on opposing
counsel.
(4) Agreement
and Designation. The parties are
encouraged to agree on the contents of the Joint Appendix.
In the absence of agreement, the appellant or
petitioner must, within 10 days of the order granting the petition, the
filing
of a certificate for review by a Judge Advocate General, the notice of
the docketing
of a mandatory review case, or the filing of a petition for new trial,
petition
for extraordinary relief or a writ appeal petition, serve on the
appellee or
respondent a designation of the issues to be raised on appeal and of
the parts
of the record to be included in the Joint Appendix.
The appellee or respondent may, within 10
days after receiving the designation, serve on the appellant or
petitioner a
designation of the additional parts of the record to draw to the
attention of
the Court. The appellant or petitioner
must include the parts designated by the appellee or respondent in the
Joint
Appendix. The parties must avoid
engaging in unnecessary designation of parts of the record because
unnecessary
designation is wasteful, and the entire record is available to the
Court. In the event a cross-appeal is
filed, the
deadlines for designations shall be established by the Clerk.
(5) Dispensing
With Requirement. The Court, on its
own motion or that of a party, may dispense with the requirement for a
Joint
Appendix and may permit a case to be heard on the original record with
any
copies of the record or parts thereof that the Court may order the
parties to
file.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
07-164
Friday,
June
01, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0370/NA.
No.
07-0420/CG.
No.
07-0460/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc.
No. 07-8015/NA.
Trent D. THOMAS, Appellant v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc.
No. 07-8017/AR.
Kinney Fitzgerald RUSSELL v. Colonel James W. HARRISON, Jr.,
Commandant,
USDB. Notice
is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature
of a
writ of habeas corpus was filed under Rule 27(a) on April 23, 2007, and
placed
on the docket this 1st day of June, 2007.
On consideration thereof, it is ordered that
said petition is hereby denied without prejudice for failure to comply
with
Rule 4(b)(1) of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0870/AR.
No.
07-0263/AF.
No.
07-0408/NA.
No.
07-0500/AR.
No.
07-0519/AR.
No.
07-0527/MC.
No.
07-0542/AR.
No.
07-6004/AR.