UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-220
Friday, July 29, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0559/NA.
No. 11-0585/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0630/AR.
No. 11-0631/AR.
No. 11-0632/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-219
Thursday, July 28, 2011
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0474/AR.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0516/AR.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0575/NA.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0607/AF.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0629/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 07-0870/AF.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-6002/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-218
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
APPEALS – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0486/NA.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW WAS VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED FOR ABUSIVE SEXUAL CONTACT AS
A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0400/AR.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0448/MC.
No. 11-0456/MC.
No. 11-0509/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0628/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 07-0870/AF.
No. 11-0520/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-217
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0564/MC.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0580/AR.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0599/AR.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0544/AR.
No. 11-0581/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0625/AR.
No. 11-0626/AR.
No. 11-0627/MC.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 11-8028/NA. Juan D. ALONSO, CCA 201000095.
Misc. No. 11-8029/NA. Calvin D. GRIFFITTS, CCA 201000673.
Misc. No. 11-8030/MC. Joseph M. JONES, CCA 201000676.
Misc. No. 11-8031/NA. Christopher KINARD, CCA 201000084.
Misc. No. 11-8032/NA. Zornell L. MALONE, CCA 201000387.
Misc. No. 11-8033/NA. Marquis L. MERIWEATHER, CCA 201000082.
Misc. No. 11-8034/NA. Jacob D. NEVANDRO, CCA 201000641.
Misc. No. 11-8035/NA. Markalle D. REDD, CCA 201000682.
Misc. No. 11-8036/MC. Hugo VALENTIN, CCA 201000683, Appellants v.
On consideration of the writ-appeal
petitions, it is ordered that said writ-appeal petitions are hereby denied.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0567/AR.
No. 11-0625/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 10-0537/AR/11-5002/AR.
No. 11-0165/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-216
Monday, July 25, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0553/AR.
No. 11-0578/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0623/AR.
No. 11-0624/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0104/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-215
Friday, July 22, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0524/AF. U.S.
v. Omarsharif K. WALKER. CCA S31788.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0104/AF. U.S.
v. Edward T. HUDSON. CCA 37249.*
No. 11-0621/AR. U.S.
v. Jared M. BOEH. CCA 20090764.
No. 11-0622/AR. U.S. v. Diego M. VARGASPUENTES. CCA 20091096.
______________________________
* Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-214
Thursday, July 21, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0143/AR. U.S. v. Aaron R. STANLEY. CCA 20050703.
On further consideration of the above-captioned case, in which the
petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals was granted on March 31, 2011, it is further ordered
that said petition is also hereby granted on the following issue:
No. 11-0257/MC. U.S. v. Thomas J. SCHUMACHER. CCA 201000153.
On further consideration of the above-captioned case, in which the
petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court
of Criminal Appeals was granted on March 8, 2011, it is further ordered that
said petition is also hereby granted on the following issue:
No. 11-0282/AR. U.S. v. Bobby D. MORRISSETTE. CCA 20090166.
On further consideration of the above-captioned case, in which the
petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals was granted April 14, 2011, it is further ordered that said petition
is also hereby granted on the following issue:
No. 11-0583/NA. U.S. v. Michael D. KING, Jr. CCA 201000406.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER SPECIFICATION 5 OF CHARGE I
ALLEGING AN INDECENT ACT UNDER ARTICLE 120(k), UCMJ, FAILED TO STATE AN OFFENSE
WHERE THE INDECENT ACT ALLEGED WAS APPELLANT ORALLY REQUESTING DURING A SKYPE
INTERNET CONVERSATION THAT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 16 YEARS EXPOSE HER BREASTS
SO THAT HE COULD VIEW THEM UTILIZING THE WEB CAMERA.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0570/AR. U.S.
v. Jordan BARTLEY. CCA 20100346.
No. 11-0572/AR. U.S.
v. Joseph R. CUTLER. CCA 20101030.
No. 11-0573/AR. U.S.
v. Nicholas A. BEACH. CCA 20100504.
No. 11-0574/AR. U.S.
v. Derek S. DEAN. CCA 20100891.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-213
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0620/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-212
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 10-0265/AF.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0523/MC.
I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA TO FRAUDULENT
ENLISTMENT WAS PROVIDENT.
II.
WHETHER
AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE
EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S
HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED
STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER,
AND JONES.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25
on Issue I only.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0485/CG.
No. 11-0536/AR.
No. 11-0542/AR.
No. 11-0548/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0619/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0579/AR.
that said motion is hereby denied
without prejudice to Appellant’s right to file a motion to withdraw that
complies with Rule 21(f), Rules of Practice and Procedure.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-211
Monday, July 18, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0617/AF.
No. 11-0618/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0515/MC.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-0148/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-210
Friday, July 15, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0496/AR.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT
OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0551/CG.
No. 11-0557/AR.
No. 11-0561/AR.
No. 11-0562/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0614/NA.
No. 11-0615/AR.
No. 11-0616/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 07-0870/AF.
No. 11-0614/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-209
Thursday, July 14, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 07-0870/AF.
No. 11-0612/NA.
No. 11-0613/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 11-8019/AR. Josh R. RITTENHOUSE v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0611/AR.
_________________________
* Fourth Petition in this case.
** EFFRON, Chief
Judge, with whom BAKER, Judge, joins (dissenting):
Article 67(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(b) (2006), governs the time period for seeking
discretionary review in our Court. Under
the statute, an “accused may petition the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
for review of a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals within 60 days from
the earlier of” the date on which the Government has perfected actual or
constructive service upon the accused.
Shortly after enactment of the UCMJ, our Court interpreted
Article 67 as permitting waiver of the time period for filing. See United
States v. Ponds, 1 C.M.A. 385, 386, 3 C.M.R. 119, 120 (1952) (interpreting
the original version of the statutory time period). For over a half century, our Court continued
to interpret Article 67 as permitting waiver for good cause. See United States v. Landers,
14 M.J. 150 (C.M.A. 1982) (interpreting the current version of the statute in
light of enactment of amendments in 1981); United States v. Tamez, 63
M.J. 201, 202 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (interpreting the current version of the
statute).
In United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110, 112-14
(C.A.A.F. 2009), the Court acknowledged these precedents, but concluded that
the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007),
compelled our Court to overrule our longstanding interpretation of Article
67. Rodriguez interpreted Bowles as establishing a “statutory/rule-based distinction,” requiring treatment of
the filing period under Article 67 as a mandatory and jurisdictional limitation
that could not be waived, irrespective of whether the petition could demonstrate
good cause for a belated filing.
In
The question before us is not whether the similarities or
differences between Article 67 and the statute at issue in
Congress, in the UCMJ, has required the government to
provide appellate counsel for an accused servicemember under Article 70, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 870 (2006). Rodriguez,
which treats the filing period as jurisdictional, precludes waiver under any
circumstance. Under Rodriguez,
even if a servicemember can demonstrate that a belated filing resulted from
deficient performance by a government-furnished attorney, the appeal must be
dismissed. Rodriguez closes the
courthouse door to members of the armed forces, such as the petitioner in this case,
regardless of whether the servicemember can demonstrate good cause for a
belated filing. Our longstanding
interpretation of Article 67 reflects that there is no “clear indication” that
Congress intended such a drastic result. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-208
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0608/AR.
No. 11-0609/AR.
No. 11-0610/AR.
No. 11-0611/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-0167/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-207
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0602/AR.
No. 11-0603/AR.
No. 11-0604/AR.
No. 11-0605/AF.
No. 11-0606/AF.
No. 11-0607/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0413/NA.
No. 11-0598/AR.
No. 11-0605/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-206
Monday, July 11, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0555/AR. U.S.
v. Nicholas A. OLSON. CCA 20090252.
No. 11-0556/AR. U.S.
v. Mark GILLIAM. CCA 20090907.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0601/AR. U.S.
v. Robert A. MOORE. CCA 20100662.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-8038/AF. In Re
Lee W. PAYTON, Jr., Petitioner. On
consideration of Petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition for extraordinary
relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said motion is
hereby granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-205
Friday, July 08, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0596/NA.
No. 11-0597/AF.
No. 11-0598/AR.
No. 11-0599/AR.
No. 11-0600/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 10-0668/AF.
No. 11-0166/AF.
No. 11-0526/AF.
No. 11-0591/AF.
On consideration of the motions
filed by Major Phillip T. Korman, USAF, to withdraw from representation as
appellate defense counsel in the above cases, it appears that the Judge
Advocate General of the Air Force has assigned other counsel to represent the
appellants and that new counsel have assumed representation of the appellants. Accordingly, said motions are hereby granted.
No. 11-0595/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-204
Thursday, July 7, 2011
APPEALS
- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0560/AR.
* It is noted that the military
judge neglected to seal the pleadings and record of a closed hearing under MRE
412(c)(2). Accordingly, the Clerk is
directed to seal Appellate Exhibits VIII and IX and pages 55-70. [See also
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
No. 11-0569/AR.
WHETHER THE AFFIRMED FORFEITURE OF $1137.00 PAY PER MONTH
FOR TWO MONTHS AT A SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL WAS ILLEGAL UNDER ARTICLE 19, UCMJ,
AND RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 1003(b)(2) WHEN APPELLANT WAS REDUCED TO E-1 AS
PART OF THE SENTENCE.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0280/AR.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
FINDING OF GUILTY AS TO SPECIFICATION 3 OF CHARGE III WHEN IT FOUND THAT AN
ONLINE CHAT CONTAINING THE LINE "U FREE TONIGHT" WAS SUFFICIENT TO
PROVE ATTEMPTED ENTICEMENT.
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS ERRED BY AFFIRMING FORFEITURE OF ALL PAY AND ALLOWANCES WHEN THE
CONVENING AUTHORITY DID NOT APPROVE ANY FORFEITURE.
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S RECENT OPINIONS
IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25
on Issues I and II only.
No. 11-0560/AR.
No. 11-0569/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0519/NA.
No. 11-0550/AR.
No. 11-0552/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0593/AF.
No. 11-0594/AF.
No. 11-0595/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0546/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-203
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
HEARINGS
No. 11-6007/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0543/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0591/AF.
No. 11-0592/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0567/AR.
No. 11-0582/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES DAILY JOURNAL No. 11-202
Tuesday, July 5, 2011 PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED No. 11-0507/AR. U.S.
v. Pedrus HELGENBERGER. CCA 20080560. No. 11-0527/AF. U.S.
v. Bryan D. CREWS. CCA S31748. No. 11-0530/AF. U.S.
v. Maximino ROSAS, Jr. CCA 37624. No. 11-0531/AF. U.S.
v. Andrew D. OLSON. CCA S31781. No. 11-0532/AF. U.S.
v. David A. AGUILAR, Jr. CCA 37545. No. 11-0545/AR. U.S.
v. Haskell L. CHURCH. CCA 20090744. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES DAILY JOURNAL No. 11-201
Friday, July 01, 2011 PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED No. 11-0539/AR. U.S.
v. Meghan M. MCCOY. CCA 20110016. No. 11-0540/AR. U.S.
v. Douglas L. DUNNAM. CCA 20100810. No. 11-0541/AR. U.S.
v. Mack J. MILLER, II. CCA 20100513. INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS No. 11-0589/AR. U.S.
v. Randa L. TAYLOR. CCA 20080958. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including
July 20, 2011.