UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-041
Friday,
October 30, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0103/AF.
No.
10-0104/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
10-0092/AR.
No.
10-6001/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-040
Thursday,
October 29, 2009
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No.
09-0441/AF.
WHETHER, IN LIGHT
OF CRAWFORD
v. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), APPELLANT WAS DENIED MEANINGFUL
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES IN VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH
AMENDMENT
RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT COMPEL THE
GOVERNMENT TO
PRODUCE ESSENTIAL BROOKS LAB OFFICIALS WHO HANDLED APPELLANT'S URINE
SAMPLES
AND INSTEAD ALLOWED THE EXPERT TOXICOLOGIST TO TESTIFY TO
NON-ADMISSIBLE
HEARSAY. SEE MELENDEZ-DIAZ v.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
No.
09-0660/AF.
I.
WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF MELENDEZ-DIAZ v.
MASSACHUSETTS, 557
II.
WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S STATEMENT
THAT HE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF THE DRUG LABORATORY REPORT
AT TRIAL
WAIVED OR FORFEITED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ISSUE, AND, IF FORFEITED,
WHETHER
ADMISSION OF THE REPORT CONSTITUTED PLAIN ERROR.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 09-0693/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 10-0097/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 10-0100/AR.
No. 10-0101/AR.
No. 10-0102/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 08-0719/CG.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-039
Wednesday,
October 28, 2009
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No.
08-0596/AF.
No.
09-0581/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE UNITED STATES’ REQUEST THAT THE COURT
ORDER AN
AFFIDAVIT FROM APPELLEE’S ORIGINAL MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL.
II. WHETHER AN
“IMPRESSION”
LEFT BY CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT APPELLEE MAY NOT HAVE TO REGISTER
AS A SEX
OFFENDER AMOUNTED TO AN AFFIRMATIVE MISREPRESENTATION AND LED TO
INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
We conclude that
the United States Air Force Court
of Criminal Appeals erred in denying the Government’s request that the
lower
court order an affidavit from Appellee’s original military defense
counsel. We remand to the lower court to
reconsider Issue II after receiving this affidavit.
“It is
black-letter law that a military accused has
a privilege to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of his confidential
communications to his attorney.”
A servicemember
therefore waives his attorney-client
privilege by claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
As the effectiveness of counsel is “‘measured
by the combined efforts of the defense team as a whole,’” an
ineffective
assistance of counsel claim waives privilege with respect to counsel
generally,
and not just that counsel against whom the claim is levied. United States v. McConnell, 55 M.J.
479, 481 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (quoting United States v. Boone, 42
M.J. 308,
313 (C.A.A.F. 1995)). Further, an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim waives all “‘matters reasonably
related
to that’” claim. United States v.
Lewis, 42 M.J. 1, 5 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (citation omitted). However, to protect against the disclosure of
privileged communications, or those communications not reasonably
related to a
claim of ineffectiveness, counsel may present questions of application
to a
military judge for a relatedness determination, and, if necessary,
direction
prior to disclosing information.
In this case, Mr.
Connors, as civilian defense
counsel, and Capt George, as assistant military defense counsel,
represented
Appellee during the Article 32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832 (2006),
investigation. On July 28, 2005,
Appellee released Capt George from representation and Capt Logan was
detailed
to Appellee as new assistant defense counsel.1 This replacement occurred before Appellee
offered to enter into a pretrial agreement and before the court-martial
convened. Nonetheless, Capt George
represented Appellee during pretrial proceedings. The
military judge at the hearing conducted
pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R.
411 (1967)
(DuBay hearing), found that “[s]ex offender registration was a
key
concern for [Appellee] in regards to the indecent assault
specifications.” However, the DuBay
military judge
declined to hear any testimony regarding Capt George on the grounds
that:
[T]his [DuBay]
hearing is limited to the
issue of ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial defense counsel. The court doesn’t see it as an issue that is
extending to this prior [assistant defense counsel (ADC)] that was
released
before trial. Given that Airman Rose
does not wish to waive privilege in regards to his prior ADC, as the
court sees
it, this court has no authority to pursue any testimony or information
from
this prior ADC.
We disagree with
the DuBay military judge’s
conclusion. Capt George’s representation
of Appellee relates to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in
at least
three ways. First, if sex offender
registration was a central concern to Appellee, one might reasonably
anticipate
that the matter was raised with Appellee’s original assistant military
defense
counsel. Second, whether registration
was raised, how it was raised, and in what manner Appellee was advised
about
registration, if at all, might better establish the full context of Mr.
Connors’s advice (or lack of advice) and the context in which Appellee
responded to the military judge’s questions regarding the performance
of
counsel during the plea colloquy. Third,
any preliminary discussion of sex offender registration could also
inform the
lower court’s judgment with respect to the application of the prejudice
prong
in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). See Hill v. Lockhart, 474
Appellee
emphasizes that Capt George was not a
member of the trial defense team at the point in the court-martial
proceedings
at which Appellee alleges that Mr. Connors engaged in ineffective
assistance of
counsel. Thus, according to Appellee,
requiring submission of an affidavit from Capt George in this case
could open
the floodgates to allow affidavits on ineffective assistance of counsel
claims
from everyone involved in the case.
However, substantive and procedural safeguards protect against
this
concern. First, only that information
reasonably related to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims is
subject
to disclosure. Second, such disclosure
need not be automatic in the absence of waiver, but rather is subject
to review
and supervision by a court.
EFFRON,
Chief Judge, with whom ERDMANN, Judge, joins (dissenting):
The Government
had an opportunity at a court-ordered
factfinding hearing to move for production of an affidavit from
Appellee’s
original defense counsel. The Government
failed to file such a motion. The
majority now would provide the Government with a belated opportunity to
engage
in additional factfinding. For the
reasons set forth below, I respectfully dissent.
During the
initial review of this case at the Air
Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Appellee contended that he had
received
ineffective assistance of counsel at his court-martial in response to
his
inquiries concerning the relationship between a guilty plea and sex
offender
registration. The court determined that
it could not resolve Appellee’s claim without a post-trial hearing to
examine
what advice Appellee received regarding sex offender registration. United States v. Rose, No. ACM 36508,
slip op. at 1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 7, 2007) (DuBay order). The court ordered a hearing under United
States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), instructing a
military judge to hear testimony and examine evidence to resolve
outstanding
issues of fact.
At the DuBay
hearing, the military judge
raised the issue of whether Appellee’s first defense counsel, Captain
(Capt)
George, would testify. She noted that
Appellee had not waived the attorney-client privilege, see
Military Rule
of Evidence (M.R.E.) 502, and stated that in view of the privilege,
Capt George
would not testify at the DuBay hearing.
The Government had filed no motion requesting the appearance of
Capt
George, and it filed no brief or memorandum of law on the subject of
privilege. The only explanation for the
military judge’s privilege inquiry appears in her findings, which note
that
before the hearing, the Government “expressed a desire to explore”
whether Capt
George advised Appellee regarding sex offender registration. United States v. Rose, No. ACM 36508,
slip op. at 1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2008) (setting out findings
following DuBay hearing) [hereinafter DuBay Findings]. The record does not reveal when or in what
manner the Government expressed this desire, and there is no motion on
the
record.
After
determining that Capt George would not
testify, the DuBay judge invited trial counsel to share “any
comments or
anything you’d like to add on that issue” of privilege.
Trial counsel replied “No, Your Honor,”
raising no objection to the DuBay judge’s ruling.
The Court of
Criminal Appeals did not abuse its
discretion when it denied the Government’s motion for an affidavit from
Capt
George. The DuBay procedure
exists to provide a forum for investigating and resolving post-trial
factual
disputes. See United States v.
Ginn, 47 M.J. 236, 243-44 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (discussing the value of DuBay
hearings in light of limited appellate factfinding capabilities). The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a DuBay
hearing in this case to determine what advice Appellee received from
his attorneys. See United
States v. Baker, 58
M.J. 380, 387 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (ordering DuBay hearing to review
questions of fact surrounding ineffective assistance of counsel claim). If the Government believed it was necessary
to have the testimony of Capt George to amplify the factual record, the
proper
time to make a motion and litigate the issue of privilege was at the DuBay
hearing, not following the oral argument in the subsequent appeal. The DuBay hearing presented the
Government with an opportunity to litigate Capt George’s role in this
dispute. The Government relinquished
this opportunity. The Court of Criminal
Appeals was not obligated to allow the Government to expand the
post-trial
factual record seven months later. Under
these circumstances, I respectfully dissent.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No.
08-0596/AF.
No.
09-0581/AF.
No.
09-0589/AR.
I.
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT NO SOLDIER AT FORWARD
OPERATING
BASE (FOB) LOYALTY HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN ANY
REGARD.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING A
MOTION TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE AND PASSWORD
PROTECTED
LAPTOP WHEN THE COMMANDER WHO ORDERED THE SEIZURE OF THE EQUIPMENT
IMMEDIATELY
SEARCHED THE EQUIPMENT UPON SEIZURE, DEMONSTRATING THAT HE WAS
PERFORMING LAW
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS AND WAS NOT NEUTRAL AND DETACHED WHEN SEIZING THE
ITEMS.
III. WHETHER THE
DOCTRINE OF INEVITABLE DISCOVERY IS APPLICABLE WHEN THERE ARE NO
INDEPENDENT
POLICE ACTIVITIES, OR TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE POLICE
PRACTICES, THAT
WOULD HAVE INEVITABLY RESULTED IN DISCOVERY, AND NO OTHER EXCEPTION TO
THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES.
IV. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED TO SUPPORT THE SEARCH
AUTHORIZATION OF APPELLANT'S LAPTOP COMPUTER AND DETACHABLE HARD DRIVE.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
No.
10-0030/AF.
WHETHER THE
MILITARY JUDGE'S
DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS
AGAINST HIM
WAS HARMLESS ERROR WHEN THE JUDGE PROHIBITED APPELLANT FROM
DEMONSTRATING THAT
HIS WIFE, THE ALLEGED RAPE VICTIM, HAD A MOTIVE TO FABRICATE THE ISSUE
OF
CONSENT BASED ON HER EXTRAMARITAL ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP THAT GAVE HER
AN
INCENTIVE TO EITHER GET APPELLANT OUT OF THE PICTURE OR PROTECT HER
EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIP.
Briefs will be
filed under
Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 09-0681/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 09-0441/AF.
No. 10-0098/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-038
Tuesday,
October 27, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0097/AR.
No.
10-0098/AR.
No.
10-0099/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
08-0738/NA.
No. 09-0376/AF.
No.
09-0535/NA.
No.
10-0095/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-037
Monday,
October 26, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0599/AF.
No.
09-0699/AF.
No. 09-0714/AR.
No.
09-0788/AR.
No.
10-0004/AR.
No.
10-0059/AF.
No.
10-0061/AF.
No.
10-0070/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0095/AR.
No.
10-0096/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-036
Friday,
October 23, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0094/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-035
Thursday,
October 22, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0616/AR.
No.
09-0618/CG.
No.
09-0757/NA.
No.
09-0769/AF.
No.
09-0798/AR.
No.
09-0802/AF.
No.
09-0807/AR.
No.
09-0815/AF.
No.
10-0017/AR.
No.
10-0019/AF.
No.
10-0022/AR.
No.
10-0055/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0092/AR.
No.
10-0093/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-034
Wednesday,
October 21, 2009
ORDERS GRANTING
PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0870/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO VACATE ITS
RULING IN LIGHT OF THE
ACTIONS OF
THE CHIEF JUDGE REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF HIS REPLACEMENT AFTER HE
HAD
RECUSED HIMSELF.
II.
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY BASING ITS SENTENCE
DISPARITY
III. WHETHER THE
AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY DENYING
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF E-MAILS SENT BETWEEN THE
CHIEF JUDGE
AND APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL ABOUT THIS CASE FOLLOWING THE CHIEF
JUDGE'S RECUSAL.
IV.
WHETHER
APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO REASONABLY PROMPT APPELLATE REVIEW WAS
DENIED
BY THE DELAY IN THIS APPEAL ARISING FROM THE AIR FORCE COURT'S
PROCESSING OF
THIS
APPEAL DURING ITS INITIAL REVIEW.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 10-0020/AF.
WHETHER
APPELLANT'S PLEA TO INDECENT EXPOSURE WAS PROVIDENT.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0513/AF.
No.
09-0544/AR.
No.
10-0037/AR.
No.
10-0044/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0091/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
08-0719/CG.
No.
09-0429/MC.
No.
09-0618/CG.
No.
09-0801/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-033
Tuesday,
October 20, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 09-0659/AF.
No. 09-0679/AR.
No. 09-0711/AR.
No. 09-0785/AR.
No. 09-0812/AF.
No. 09-0816/AF.
No. 10-0038/AR.
No. 10-0045/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 08-0779/AR.
No. 10-0088/AR.
No. 10-0089/AR.
No. 10-0090/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 09-0342/AF.
No. 09-0429/MC.
No. 09-0621/AR.
No. 09-0692/NA.
No. 10-0082/MC.
No. 10-0087/AR.
* Second petition
filed in
this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-032
Monday,
October 19, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0583/AF.
No.
09-0718/AR.
No. 09-0721/AR.
No.
09-0722/AF.
No.
09-0725/AR.
No.
09-0732/AR.
No.
09-0735/AR.
No.
09-0749/AR.
No.
09-0766/AF.
No.
09-0797/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0083/AF.
No.
10-0084/AF.
No.
10-0085/AR.
No.
10-0086/AR.
No.
10-0087/AR.
SPECIAL DOCKET MATTERS
No. 07-29. In the Matter of Lloyd F. UKWU.
It appearing that the above-named attorney is
a member of the Bar of this Court, that he was suspended from the
practice of
law and later disbarred by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
that
pursuant to Rule 15(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States
Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces, said attorney was suspended from the
practice of
law before this Court and was directed to show cause by October 1,
2009, why he
should not be disbarred, that no response has been received to the Show
Cause
Order, and considering the serious nature of his misconduct, it is
ordered that
Lloyd F. Ukwu is hereby disbarred from the practice of law before this
Court
effective this date.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-031
Friday,
October 16, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0081/AF.
No.
10-0082/MC.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-030
Thursday,
October 15, 2009
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 07-0553/NA.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-0553/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0079/AR.
No.
10-0080/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
10-0080/AR.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-029
Wednesday,
October 14, 2009
HEARINGS
No. 08-0804/AR.
No. 09-0466/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 10-0016/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 08-0651/AR.
No. 10-0074/AR.
No. 10-0075/AR.
No. 10-0076/AR.
No. 10-0077/AR.
No. 10-0078/AR.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No. 10-8001/AR.
Penny F. JOHNSON, Petitioner v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 08-0580/AR.
No. 09-0805/AR.
No. 09-0806/AR.
No. 10-0009/AR.
No. 10-0036/MC.
No. 10-0066/AR.
No. 10-0068/AR.
No. 10-0078/AR.
No. 10-6001/MC. Frank D. WUTERICH, Appellant v.
* Second petition
filed in
this case.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-028
Tuesday,
October 13, 2009
HEARINGS
No. 09-0073/AR.
No. 08-0339/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 09-0674/AR.
No. 09-0696/AR.
No. 09-0708/AF.
No. 09-0710/AR.
No. 09-0752/AR.
No. 09-0762/AR.
No. 09-0770/AR.
No. 09-0782/AF.
No. 09-0799/AR.
No. 09-0809/AR.
No. 10-0043/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 10-0071/AR.
No. 10-0072/AF.
No. 10-0073/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 07-0553/NA.
No. 09-0681/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-027
Friday,
October 9, 2009
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 08-0417/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 08-0417/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0630/AR.
No. 09-0662/AF.
No.
09-0673/AR.
No.
09-0748/AR.
No.
09-0774/AR.
No.
09-0792/AF.
No.
09-0796/AR.
No.
09-0825/AR.
No.
10-0012/AF.
No.
10-0031/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0580/AR.
No.
10-0065/AF.
No.
10-0066/AR.
No.
10-0067/AF.
No.
10-0068/AR.
No.
10-0069/AF.
No.
10-0070/AF.
_____________________
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-026
Thursday,
October 8, 2009
HEARINGS
No.
09-0169/AR.
No.
08-0757/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 09-0642/AF.
I.
WHETHER THE AIR
FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE POST-TRIAL
PROCESSING TIME OF 560 DAYS WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
WHETHER APPELLANT
WAS DENIED PLENARY REVIEW WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL WHEN
THE
AFCCA REVIEWED AND AFFIRMED THIS CASE WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIVE PLEADING ON
HIS
BEHALF BY HIS APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL.
The decision of
the Air
Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of
the Air
Force for remand in that court for a new review under Article 66, UCMJ,
with
assistance of counsel under Article 70, UCMJ.
Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, will apply.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
07-0253/NA.
No.
09-0380/AF.
No.
09-0775/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-025
Wednesday,
October 7, 2009
HEARINGS
No.
09-0133/MC.
No.
08-0660/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0057/AR.
No.
10-0058/AF.
No.
10-0059/AF.
No.
10-0060/AF.
No. 10-0061/AF.
No.
10-0062/AF.
No.
10-0063/AF.
No.
10-0064/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
09-0466/AF.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-024
Tuesday,
October 6, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
09-0602/AF.
No. 09-6006/MC.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No.
09-8030/AF. Lee W. PAYTON, Appellant v.
Major General Roger W. Burg, 20th AF/CC General
Court-Martial Convening
Authority F.E. Warren AFB, WY, and Colonel Michael E. Fortney, 341st
MW/CC Special Court-Martial Convening Authority Malmstrom AFB, MT, and
Lieutenant Colonel Don Christensen, HQ AF/JAT Military Judge, and
United
States, Appellees. CCA 2009-03. On consideration of the writ-appeal petition,
it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to
Appellant’s right to raise the issue asserted during the course of
normal
appellate review.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc.
No. 10-8003. Chen Shui-Bian,
Petitioner v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
05-0157/NA.
No. 09-0642/AF.
MANDATES ISSUED
No.
08-0770/MC.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-023
Monday,
October 5, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0157/NA.
No.
10-0056/CG.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
08-0660/NA.
Appellant's
motion to cite supplemental authority granted.
___________________
*
Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-022
Friday,
October 2, 2009
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0053/AF.
No.
10-0054/AF.
No. 10-0055/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
09-0466/AF.
No.
10-0049/AR.
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
10-021
Thursday,
October 1, 2009
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 09-0577/AF.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 09-0577/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
10-0048/AR.
No.
10-0049/AR.
No.
10-0050/AR.
No.
10-0051/AF.
No.
10-0052/MC.