UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-200
Thursday, June 30, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0497/MC. U.S. v. Desmond J. HORTON. CCA 201000481.
Review granted on the following issues:
I. WHETHER
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DECLINING TO APPLY MELENDEZ-DIAZ
v. MASSACHUSETTS, IN APPLYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL HARMLESSNESS TEST
INCORRECTLY, AND IN ASSERTING THAT UNITED STATES v. MAGYARI CONTROLS
WHEN IT HELD THAT: (1) DRUG LABORATORY DOCUMENTS ARE NON-TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE;
(2) DRUG LAB REPORTS ARE BUSINESS RECORDS THAT FALL UNDER THE HEARSAY
EXCEPTION, AND (3) THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE LAB REPORT WAS GENERATED
FOR COURT-MARTIAL USE.
II. WHETHER IN LIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S
RULING IN MELENDEZ-DIAZ, THE ADMISSION OF REPORTS GENERATED BY ABSENT,
UNTESTED LAB TECHNICIANS IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AMOUNTED TO EITHER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ON
THE PART OF THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL OR PLAIN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0529/AF. U.S. v. Matthew C. ROTH. CCA S31834. Review
granted on the following issue:
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. 11-0463/AR. U.S.
v. Jermaine J. JOHNSON. CCA 20090797.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0391/AR. U.S.
v. Steven K. SHAFER. CCA 20090650.*
No. 11-0587/AR. U.S.
v. Brandon WHIPPLE. CCA 20100379.
No. 11-0588/AR. U.S.
v. Corey MCLINTIC. CCA 20100880.
No. 11-0589/AR. U.S.
v. Randa L. TAYLOR. CCA 20080958.
No. 11-0590/AR. U.S.
v. Anthony C. KEENE, Jr. CCA 20100516.
___________________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-199
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0514/NA. U.S. v. Damien J. AUTRY. CCA 201100105.
Review granted on the following issue:
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. 11-0586/MC. U.S.
v. Curtis C. GRANT. CCA 201000651.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0529/AF. U.S.
v. Matthew C. ROTH. CCA S31834. Appellant's motion for leave to file an
additional supplement granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-198
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0521/AR.
No. 11-0522/AR.
No. 11-0528/AF.
No. 11-0533/AF.
No. 11-0534/AF.
No. 11-0535/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW
FILED
No. 11-0583/NA.
No. 11-0584/AR.
No. 11-0585/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 11-8024/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-197
Monday, June 27, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0494/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 DENIED
No. 11-0504/AR.
No. 11-0517/AR.
No. 11-0518/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0582/MC.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 10-0383/MC.
No. 11-0131/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-196
Friday, June 24, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0488/AR.
No. 11-0502/AR.
No. 11-0512/AR.
No. 11-0513/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0581/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0546/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-195
Thursday, June 23, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0554/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.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0580/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0413/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-194
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0467/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. 11-0525/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.
No. 11-6007/AR.
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS ERRED (1) IN FINDING THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE’S SUPPRESSION OF THE
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND (2) IN HOLDING THAT THE
PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES WERE RELIABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
THE ARMY COURT MADE IMPERMISSIBLE FINDINGS OF FACT UNDER ARTICLE 62 AND RELIED
ON SUCH FINDINGS IN OVERRULING THE MILITARY JUDGE.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0578/AR.
No. 11-0579/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-8038/AF. In Re
Lee W. PAYTON, Jr., Petitioner.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-193
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0495/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. 11-0511/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. 11-0477/AR.
No. 11-0499/AR.
No. 11-0508/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0575/NA.
No. 11-0576/AR.
No. 11-0577/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 11-8027/NA. In Re Justin H. MCMURRIN, Petitioner v. The Honorable Ray MABUS,
Secretary of the Navy, and Commanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig,
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0547/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-192
Monday, June 20, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0570/AR.
No. 11-0571/AR.
No. 11-0572/AR.
No. 11-0573/AR.
No. 11-0574/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
Misc. No. 11-8038/AF. In Re Lee W. PAYTON, Jr., Petitioner. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the
nature of a writ of mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0413/NA.
No. 11-0519/NA.
No. 11-0563/MC.
No. 11-0564/MC.
On consideration of the motions filed by Lieutenant Ryan
Santicola to withdraw from representation as Appellate Defense Counsel in the
above cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another
counsel to represent Appellants and that the new counsel has assumed
representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are granted.
No. 11-0568/AR.
No. 11-0571/AR.
No. 11-6006/AF.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-0123/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-191
Friday, June 17, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0487/AR.
No. 11-0493/AF.
No. 11-0503/AR.
No. 11-0505/AR.
No. 11-0506/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0568/AR.
No. 11-0569/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0143/AR.
No. 11-0231/AR.
No. 11-0567/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-6004/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-190
Thursday, June 16, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0565/NA.
No. 11-0566/MC.
No. 11-0567/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-189
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0563/MC.
No. 11-0564/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-188
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW
FILED
No. 11-5004/AR.
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER
OF LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE’S INSTRUCTION ON 18 U.S.C. §
2422(B), WHICH INSTRUCTION USED THE TERM “INTERNET” INSTEAD OF “ANY FACILITY OR
MEANS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE,” WAS ERRONEOUS.
On May 23, 2011, the Court issued an order under Docket No.
11-0239/AR, granting Appellant’s petition for grant of review.Appellant will
file a brief and Joint Appendix on the granted issue, the specified issue and
the issue certified by the Judge Advocate General on or before July 14,
2011. Appellee’s brief will be filed no
later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant’s brief. Appellant may file a reply no later than 10
days after the filing of Appellee’s brief.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0479/AR.
No. 11-0489/AR.
No. 11-0490/AR.
No. 11-0491/AR.
No. 11-0492/AR.
No. 11-0498/AR.
No. 11-0500/AR.
No. 11-0501/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0560/AR.
No. 11-0561/AR.
No. 11-0562/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-5004/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-187
Monday, June 13, 2011
APPEALS
- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0431/AR.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS
SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WHERE HIS TRIAL
DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ACTIONS DURING THE PRETRIAL HEARING LED DIRECTLY TO
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF ADDITIONAL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND WHERE HIS
TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED AT TRIAL TO CALL TWO WITNESSES WHO WOULD HAVE
UNDERMINED THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S KEY WITNESSES.
and on the following specified
issue:
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. SEE UNITED
STATES v. FOSLER, 69. M.J. 490 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals is set aside. The record of
trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that
court for further appellate inquiry and consideration on the granted and specified
issues. The Court of Criminal Appeals
will obtain affidavits from the civilian and military trial defense counsel
relating to the assigned issue. If the
court, after reviewing the affidavits, determines that a fact-finding hearing
is necessary, see United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F.
1997), that court shall order a hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay,
17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967). Once the necessary information is obtained, the court will conduct its
Article 66(c), UCMJ, review. Thereafter,
Article 67, UCMJ, shall apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0431/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0559/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS
No. 11-0034/AF.
No. 11-0165/AF.
No. 11-6002/AF.
On consideration of the motions
filed by Major Reggie D. Yager to withdraw as Appellate Defense Counsel, it
appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to
represent Appellants and that the new counsel has assumed representation of
said Appellants. Accordingly, it is
ordered that said motions are hereby granted.
No. 11-0558/AR.
No. 11-8027/NA. In Re
Justin H. MCMURRIN, Petitioner v. The Honorable Ray MABUS, Secretary of the
Navy, and Commnanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-186
Friday, June 10, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0557/AR.
No. 11-0558/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-6007/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-185
Thursday, June 9, 2011
APPEALS
- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0361/AR.
WHETHER THE CONVENING AUTHORITY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A
MATERIAL TERM OF THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT BY FAILING TO WAIVE AUTOMATIC
FORFEITURES.
The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals is set aside, and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General
for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article
66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2006). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, will apply.
[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR
REVIEW this date.]
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0361/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0385/AR.
No. 11-0484/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0282/AR.
No. 11-0403/AF.
No. 11-0534/AF.
No. 11-0516/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-184
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0554/AR.
No. 11-0555/AR.
No. 11-0556/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-183
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0464/NA.
No. 11-0478/NA.
No. 11-0480/AF.
No. 11-0482/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0553/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-182
Monday, June 6, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0458/AR.
No. 11-0470/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0548/AR.
No. 11-0549/AR.
No. 11-0550/AR.
No. 11-0551/CG.
No. 11-0552/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-181
Friday, June 3, 2011
APPEALS
- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0450/AR.
* It is directed that the promulgating
order be corrected to reflect the UCMJ article number as 112a.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0437/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. 11-0450/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0547/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-8027/NA.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 10-0317/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-180
Thursday, June 2, 2011
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-6003/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0403/AF.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED,
AFTER FINDING ALL THREE CHARGES AROSE OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION AND WERE PART
OF THE SAME IMPULSE, BY MERGING THEM FOR SENTENCING RATHER THAN DISMISSING
THEM.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 11-0413/NA.
I. 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
II. ALTHOUGH THE CRIME OF INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD TO WHICH
APPELLANT PLEADED GUILTY WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED CRIME
OF RAPE OF A CHILD AND THUS HAD NOT BEEN FORMALLY REFERRED TO TRIAL BY
COURT-MARTIAL BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY, WHETHER APPELLANT WAIVED SUCH
IRREGULARITY BY PLEADING GUILTY UNDER A PRETRIAL AGREEMENT TO INDECENT ACTS
WITH A CHILD IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, WHERE NEITHER THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENT
NOR APPELLANT'S PLEA AT ARRAIGNMENT EXPRESSLY SET FORTH EITHER POTENTIAL
TERMINAL ELEMENT FOR AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION, BUT BOTH
ELEMENTS WERE DISCUSSED AND ADMITTED DURING THE PROVIDENCE INQUIRY.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25
on Issue II only.
PETITION FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0546/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 11-8037/AF. In re Keith M. HALL, Petitioner, v. Commander Robert STOVER, USN,
Commanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-179
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0468/AR.
No. 11-0469/AR.
No. 11-0471/AR.
No. 11-0472/AR.
No. 11-0473/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0542/AR.
No. 11-0543/AR.
No. 11-0544/AR.
No. 11-0545/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 11-8017/AR. In Re Staff Sergeant Daniel GASKINS,
Misc. No. 11-8023/AR. Adam WINFIELD, Petitioner, vs. Kwasi HAWKS,
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0538/NA.
No. 11-8023/AR.
No. 10-0178/AF.