UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-203
Tuesday,
June 30, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
BAKER,
J. (concurring in the result).
I concur in the
result based
on my separate opinion in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J.
110, 120
(C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).
However, it bears noting that, having concluded that Article
67(c),
UCMJ, prescribes a sixty-day mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline, the
majority now concludes that this mandatory and jurisdictional sixty
days does
not expire if the sixtieth day falls on a weekend or holiday. This conclusion is not based on Article 67,
UCMJ, which makes no reference to weekends, holidays, or other calendar
accounting exceptions. Rather, the
majority finds the exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline under Article 67, UCMJ, in the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the
BAKER, J.
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the
result based
on my separate opinion in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J.
110, 120
(C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).
However, it bears noting that, having concluded that Article
67(c),
UCMJ, prescribes a sixty-day mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline, the
majority now concludes that this mandatory and jurisdictional sixty
days does
not expire if the sixtieth day falls on a weekend or holiday. This conclusion is not based on Article 67,
UCMJ, which makes no reference to weekends, holidays, or other calendar
accounting exceptions. Rather, the
majority finds the exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline under Article 67, UCMJ, in the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the
BAKER, J.
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the
result based
on my separate opinion in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J.
110, 120
(C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).
However, it bears noting that, having concluded that Article
67(c),
UCMJ, prescribes a sixty-day mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline, the
majority now concludes that this mandatory and jurisdictional sixty
days does
not expire if the sixtieth day falls on a weekend or holiday. This conclusion is not based on Article 67,
UCMJ, which makes no reference to weekends, holidays, or other calendar
accounting exceptions. Rather, the
majority finds the exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline under Article 67, UCMJ, in the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the
BAKER, J.
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the
result based
on my separate opinion in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J.
110, 120
(C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).
However, it bears noting that, having concluded that Article
67(c),
UCMJ, prescribes a sixty-day mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline, the
majority now concludes that this mandatory and jurisdictional sixty
days does
not expire if the sixtieth day falls on a weekend or holiday. This conclusion is not based on Article 67,
UCMJ, which makes no reference to weekends, holidays, or other calendar
accounting exceptions. Rather, the
majority finds the exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional filing
deadline under Article 67, UCMJ, in the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the
No.
08-0547/NA.
No.
09-0170/AR.
No.
09-0424/AR.
No.
09-0480/AR.
No. 09-0490/AF.
No.
09-0500/CG.
No.
09-0507/AR.
No.
09-0584/AF.
No.
09-0653/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
EFFRON, Chief
Judge (concurring in the result):
I concur in the
result and
note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under
Article
67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2). See United States v. Angell,
No. 09-0098/AR, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring
in the
result).
BAKER, J.
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the
result. See United States v.
Angell,
___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., concurring) and United
States v.
Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).
No.
09-0121/AR.
EFFRON, Chief
Judge (concurring in the result):
I concur in the
result and
note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under
Article
67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2). See United States v. Angell,
No. 09-0098/AR, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring
in the
result).
BAKER, J.
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the
result. See United States v.
Angell,
___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., concurring) and United
States v.
Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Baker, J., dissenting).
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0707/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-202
Monday,
June 29, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0705/NA.
No.
09-0706/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-201
Friday,
June 26, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0269/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0307/AF.
No.
09-0698/AF.
No.
09-0699/AF.
No.
09-0700/AF.
No.
09-0701/AF.
No.
09-0702/NA.
No.
09-0703/MC.
No.
09-0704/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 09-0621/AR.
No. 09-0630/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
09-0164/AF.
* Second petition
filed in this case.
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-200
Thursday,
June 25, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 09-0030/AR.
EFFRON, Chief
Judge (concurring in the result):
I concur in the
result and
note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under
Article
67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2). See United States v. Angell,
No. 09-0098/AR, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring
in the
result)
BAKER, Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent for the
reasons
stated in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 120
(C.A.A.F. 2009)
(Baker, J., dissenting).
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-199
Wednesday,
June 24, 2009
HEARINGS
No.
08-0770/MC.
No.
08-0746/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0316/AR.
No.
09-0365/AR.
No.
09-0443/AF.
No.
09-0450/MC.
No.
09-0462/AF.
No.
09-0464/AF.
No.
09-0465/AF.
No.
09-0511/AR.
No.
09-0514/MC.
No.
09-0520/NA.
No.
09-0522/AF.
No.
09-0562/AF.
No. 09-0563/AF.
No.
09-0565/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0694/AR.
No.
09-0695/AR.
No. 09-0696/AR.
No.
09-0697/NA.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-198
Tuesday,
June 23, 2009
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No.
09-0376/AF.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE
ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN DENYING THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL
EVIDENCE FROM
APPELLANT'S HOME.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 09-0400/AR.
No. 09-0401/AR.
No. 09-0431/AR.
No. 09-0448/AR.
No. 09-0454/AR.
No. 09-0478/AR.
No. 09-0512/AR.
No. 09-0550/AR.
No. 09-0552/AR.
No. 09-0554/AR.
No. 09-0578/AR.
No. 09-0591/AR.
No. 09-0628/AR.
SPECIAL DOCKET MATTERS
No.
09-09. In the Matter of Nathan H. WASSER. It
appearing that the above-named attorney is
a member of the Bar of this Court, that he was disbarred by consent
from the
practice of law by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on February 3,
2009, and
that having been suspended by this Court and ordered to show cause why
he
should not be disbarred by this Court pursuant to Rule 15(b), Rules of
Practice
and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces,
said
attorney has not responded, it is ordered that Nathan H. Wasser is
hereby
disbarred from the practice of law before this Court effective this
date.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 08-0644/AR.
No. 09-0236/AR.
No. 09-0252/AF.
No. 09-0316/AR.
No. 09-0615/AR.
No. 09-0646/AF.
No. 08-0746/MC.
No. 08-0770/MC.
Upon
this Court’s receipt of notification of the June 12, 2009,
passing of Senior Judge Robinson O. Everett, and upon the request of
Acting
Chief Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann, Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Jr., on
this 23rd day of June 2009, designated
Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, of the United States District Court for
the
Southern District of West Virginia, to perform the duties of a Judge of
the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for each of the
above cases
pursuant to Article 142(f), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10
U.S.C.
§ 942(f) (2000).*
No.
09-8025/AR. Hasan K. AKBAR,
Petitioner v.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-197
Monday,
June 22, 2009
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No.
07-0148/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No.
07-0148/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 08-0740/AR.
No. 08-0769/AR.
No. 09-0017/AR.
No. 09-0262/AF.
No. 09-0353/AF.
No. 09-0375/AF.
No. 09-0384/AF.
No. 09-0409/AF.
No. 09-0446/NA.
No. 09-0492/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 07-0870/AF.
No. 09-0688/AF.
No. 09-0689/AF.
No. 09-0690/AF.
No. 09-0691/AF.
No. 09-0692/NA.
No. 09-0693/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 09-0072/AR.
No. 09-0370/AR.
No. 09-0616/AR.
*
Third petition
filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-196
Friday,
June 19, 2009
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 08-0720/AF.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 08-0720/AF.
No. 09-0242/MC.
WHETHER,
BY FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CHARGE AND SPECIFICATION EXCEPT FOR
THE
WORDS "ON DIVERS OCCASIONS," THE MILITARY JUDGE RENDERED AMBIGUOUS
FINDINGS
NOT CAPABLE OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 09-0414/NA.
WHETHER,
IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. WALTERS, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F.
2003) AND UNITED
STATES v. SEIDER, 60 M.J. 36 (C.A.A.F. 2004), THE CHARGE AND
SPECIFICATION
MUST BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT COULD NOT
CONDUCT A
PROPER APPELLATE REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY PREVENTS A
REHEARING. SEE UNITED STATES v.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0686/AF.
No.
09-0687/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No.
09-8027/AR. James E. MULLINS, Petitioner
v. Anthony A. Cucolo, Major General, U.S. Army Convening Authority, Patrick J. Parrish, Colonel, U.S. Army
Military Judge, and United States, Respondents.
CCA 20090328. On consideration of
the petition for extraordinary relief for writs of mandamus and
prohibition and
Petitioner’s motion for an expedited stay of proceedings, said motion
is hereby
denied and said petition is hereby denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
09-0133/MC.
No.
09-0580/AR.
No.
09-0607/AR.
No.
09-0609/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-195
Thursday,
June 18, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 09-0685/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 08-0621/AF.
No. 08-0740/AR.
No. 08-0769/AR.
No. 09-0017/AR.
No. 09-0121/AR.
No. 09-0371/AR.
No. 09-0573/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-194
Wednesday,
June 17, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0288/AR.
No.
09-0387/AR.
No.
09-0417/AR.
No.
09-0419/AR.
No.
09-0452/MC.
No.
09-0473/AR.
No.
09-0486/AR.
No.
09-0516/AR.
No.
09-0528/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 09-6005/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0680/NA.
No.
09-0681/AR.
No.
09-0682/AR.
No.
09-0683/AR.
No.
09-0684/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-193
Tuesday,
June 16, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
07-0401/NA.
No.
09-0673/AR.
No.
09-0674/AR.
No.
09-0675/AR.
No.
09-0676/AR.
No.
09-0677/AR.
No.
09-0678/AR.
No.
09-0679/AR.
______________________
*
Second petition filed in this case.
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-192
Monday,
June 15, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0349/AF.
No.
09-0377/NA.
No.
09-0496/AR.
No.
09-0559/AF.
No.
09-0564/AF.
No.
09-0567/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0666/AF.
No.
09-0667/AF.
No.
09-0668/AF.
No.
09-0669/AF.
No.
09-0670/AF.
No.
09-0671/AF.
No.
09-0672/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
08-0806/MC.
No.
09-0519/NA.
No.
09-0535/NA.
No.
09-0569/AR.
No.
09-0608/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-191
Friday,
June 12, 2009
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0159/AR.
No.
09-0514/MC.
No.
09-0610/NA.
No.
09-0588/AR.
No.
09-0589/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
08-0495/NA.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-190
Thursday,
June 11, 2009
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No.
08-0804/AR.
WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE IS
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
No.
09-0145/AR.
WHETHER THE ARMY
COURT ERRED
WHEN IT RULED THAT APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE
10, UCMJ,
WAS NOT VIOLATED.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
No.
09-0304/AF.
WHETHER THE AIR
FORCE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT ANY SENTENCE RELIEF TO
APPELLANT WHEN
THAT COURT FOUND APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TIMELY POST-TRIAL
PROCESSING
WAS VIOLATED BY THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AN UNREASONABLE 946 DAYS TO
RETURN THE
RECORD OF TRIAL TO THAT COURT AFTER REMAND FOR NEW POST-TRIAL
PROCESSING.
No briefs will be
filed
under Rule 25.
No.
09-0382/AF.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE
ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPERT WITNESS TO
TESTIFY CONCERNING
APPELLANT'S RISK OF RECIDIVISM.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 08-0755/NA.
No. 09-0284/AF.
No. 09-0289/AR.
No. 09-0302/MC.
No. 09-0374/AR.
No. 09-0385/AF.
No. 09-0442/AF.
No. 09-0499/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 09-0665/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-189
Wednesday,
June 10, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0421/AR.
No.
09-0470/NA.
No.
09-0476/AF.
No.
09-0504/MC.
No.
09-0508/MC.
No.
09-0509/AR.
No.
09-0518/AF.
No.
09-0587/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0223/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 08-0720/AF.
No.
08-0755/NA.
No.
09-0420/AR.
No.
09-0434/AR.
*
Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-188
Tuesday,
June 9, 2009
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 07-0079/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0079/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0560/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-187
Monday,
June 8, 2009
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 09-0466/AF.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE REVERSIBLY ERRED WHEN SHE DID NOT DISMISS THE
CHARGES AND
SPECIFICATIONS AFTER SHE FOUND THAT UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE EXISTED
IN THIS CASE.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0660/AF.
No.
09-0661/AF.
No.
09-0662/AF.
No.
09-0663/AF.
No. 09-0664/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-186
Friday,
June 5, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0656/AF.
No.
09-0657/AF.
No.
09-0658/AF.
No.
09-0659/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
09-0466/AF.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
08-0739/AR.
No.
09-0013/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-185
Thursday,
June 4, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No.
09-0634/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
09-0043/AR.
No.
09-0541/AR.
No.
09-0542/AR.
No.
09-0580/AR.
No.
09-0610/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-184
Wednesday,
June 3, 2009
PETITIONS FOR
GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0259/AR.
No.
09-0373/NA.
No.
09-0407/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0654/AF.
No.
09-0655/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No.
09-8027/AR. James E. MULLINS, Petitioner
v. Anthony A. Cucolo, Major General, U.S. Army Convening Authority, and
Patrick
J. Parrish, Colonel, U.S. Army Military Judge, and United States,
Respondents. CCA 20090328.
Notice is hereby given that a petition for
extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed
under Rule
27(a).
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-183
Tuesday,
June 2, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0024/NA.
No.
09-0211/MC.
No.
09-0225/AF.
No.
09-0301/AR.
No.
09-0356/MC.
No.
09-0386/AR.
No.
09-0427/AR.
No.
09-0440/AR.
No.
09-0460/AF.
No.
09-0489/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0652/AR.
No.
09-0653/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
09-182
Monday,
June 1, 2009
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 09-0073/AR.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS ON THE
DEFENSE
OF MISTAKE OF LAW.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
09-0649/AF.
No.
09-0650/MC.
No.
09-0651/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
08-0409/NA.