UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-178
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0453/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. 11-0454/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. 11-0447/MC.
No. 11-0465/MC.
No. 11-0466/AR.
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0538/NA.
No. 11-0539/AR.
No. 11-0540/AR.
No. 11-0541/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-177
Friday, May 27, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0536/AR.
No. 11-0537/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-176
Thursday, May 26, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0396/MC.
APPELLANT PURPORTEDLY ENLISTED IN
THE MARINE CORPS AFTER A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF HIS INCAPACITY TO CONTRACT,
WHICH REMAINS IN EFFECT. WAS HIS
ENLISTMENT VOID AB INITIO?
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 11-0446/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. 11-0481/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. 10-0265/AF.
No. 11-0520/AR.
No. 11-0521/AR.
No. 11-0522/AR.
No. 11-0523/MC.
No. 11-0524/AF.
No. 11-0525/AF.
No. 11-0526/AF.
No. 11-0527/AF.
No. 11-0528/AF.
No. 11-0529/AF.
No. 11-0530/AF.
No. 11-0531/AF.
No. 11-0532/AF.
No. 11-0533/AF.
No. 11-0534/AF.
No. 11-0535/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
Misc. No. 11-8037/AF.
In re Keith M. HALL, Petitioner, v. Commander Robert STOVER, USN,
Commanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig,
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0361/AR.
No. 11-5001/NA.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 10-0494/AF.
No. 11-5001/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-175
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
APPEALS
SUMMARY-DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0320/AF.
I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S WAIVER OF APPELLATE
COUNSEL, AT THE END OF TRIAL AND 117 DAYS BEFORE ACTION, WAS PREMATURE AND
THEREFORE LEGALLY INVALID AND WITHOUT EFFECT.
II. WHETHER THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S
RECOMMENDATION ERRONEOUSLY FAILED TO REFERENCE APPELLANT'S PREVIOUS ARTICLE 15
PUNISHMENT FOR AN OFFENSE ALSO CHARGED AS PART OF ADDITIONAL CHARGE II.
III. WHETHER THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT
FAILED TO APPROPRIATELY CREDIT APPELLANT FOR THE PRIOR ARTICLE 15 PUNISHMENT
FOR AN OFFENSE ALSO CHARGED AS PART OF ADDITIONAL CHARGE II.
It is further ordered that the
decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the
convening authority’s action are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air
Force for remand to the convening authority for new post-trial review and
action. Thereafter, Article 66, UCMJ,
and Article 67, UCMJ, respectively, will apply. Furthermore, Appellant’s motion to supplement the record and Appellee’s
motion to file a second opposition to remand are hereby granted; and Appellant’s
motion for remand, Appellee’s motion to supplement the record, Appellant’s
second motion to supplement dated February 18, 2011, and Appellant’s second
motion to supplement the record dated April 1, 2011, are hereby denied as moot.
No. 11-0483/AR.
WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL BASIS
IN LAW OR FACT TO QUESTION APPELLANT'S PLEA TO ESCAPE FROM CONFINEMENT GIVEN
THAT HE WAS NEITHER WITHIN A CONFINEMENT FACILITY NOR UNDER GUARD OR ESCORT
AFTER HAVING BEEN PLACED IN A CONFINEMENT FACILITY.
It is further ordered that the
decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to
Charge II and its specification, and Charge II and its specification are
dismissed. The remaining findings of
guilt and the sentence are affirmed.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0405/AF.
No. 11-0426/AR.
No. 11-0433/AR.
No. 11-0457/AR.
No. 11-0459/AR.
No. 11-0460/AR.
No. 11-0461/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0517/AR.
No. 11-0518/AR.
No. 11-0519/NA.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-174
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
HEARINGS
No. 11-0167/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0512/AR.
No. 11-0513/AR.
No. 11-0514/NA.
No. 11-0515/MC.
No. 11-0516/AR.
RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No. 11-5001/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0231/AR.
No. 11-0476/AR.
No. 11-8027. In Re
Justin H. MCMURRIN, Petitioner v. The Honorable Ray MABUS, Secretary of the
Navy, and Commanding Officer, Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, Respondents. On consideration of the petition for extraordinary
relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that Respondents
show cause on or before June 3, 2011, why the requested relief should not be
granted.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-0089/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-173
Monday, May 23, 2011
APPEALS
SUMMARY-DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0154/CG.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0239/AR.
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS INCORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT ON
NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENSE WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
And the following issue specified by
the Court:
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 COMMERCE" WAS NOT
HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 11-0362/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. 11-0422/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. 11-0427/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.
PEITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0342/MC.
No. 11-0398/AR.
No. 11-0455/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0510/NA.
No. 11-0511/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 11-8021/MC. William J. WIECZOREK, Jr., Appellant v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
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. Commandant,
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Commanding Officer,
Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, Appellees
Notice is hereby given that
writ-appeal petitions for review of the decision of the United States
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary
relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus or mandamus were filed in the
above cases under Rule 27(b) on this date.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-172
Friday, May 20, 2011
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-6007/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-171
Thursday, May 19, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0507/AR.
No. 11-0508/AR.
No. 11-0509/AR.
PETITIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No. 10-0494/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0143/AR.
No. 11-0509/AR.
ORDER
IN RE CASE INFORMATION
The
Order of the Court, In Re Electronic Filing, entered on July 22, 2010, 69
M.J. 204, is hereby supplemented as follows this date. It is ordered that counsel shall hereafter
redact the names of complainants and victims from all pleadings in sex offense
cases, that the requirement for personal and data identifiers to be redacted in
pleadings filed with the Court shall apply to all filings, whether filed
electronically or on paper, and that the attached Notice Regarding Case
Information shall take effect 10 days after the date of this Order.
NOTICE REGARDING CASE
INFORMATION
Once filed,
pleadings, including the joint appendix, are public documents and are available
for inspection at the courthouse. Accordingly, parties are required to redact private and sensitive
information from such pleadings. See,
Order of July 22, 2010 (In Re Electronic Filing). 69 M.J. 204-06. Specifically, that order requires the
following information to be redacted from electronic filings:
The Court,
by order of May 19, 2011, has expanded the order to make it applicable to all
filings and also directed that the following additional information be redacted
from all filings:
Parties
also shall exercise caution in including other sensitive personal data in their
filings, such as personal identifying numbers, medical records, individual
financial information, employment history, information regarding an
individual’s cooperation with the government, and national security
information.
The Clerk
will not review any documents for redaction. Particular attention should be focused on attachments and appendices
where sensitive or personal information should be redacted before filing the
document in the Court. If it is
necessary in a particular case to include personal or sensitive information in
a filing, the document may be filed with a motion to file it under seal along
with a redacted version that can be filed and be available to the public.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-170
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
HEARINGS
No. 11-6003/AR.
No. 11-6004/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0167/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-169
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
HEARINGS
No. 10-0461/NA.
APPEALS - SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 11-0105/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0449/AR.
No. 11-0451/AR.
No. 11-0452/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0503/AR.
No. 11-0504/AR.
No. 11-0505/AR.
No. 11-0506/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 10-0178/AF.
No. 11-8024/NA.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 10-0572/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-168
Monday, May 16, 2011
HEARINGS
No. 11-0149/MC. U.S.
v. James N. FOSLER. CCA 201000134.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0381/AR. U.S. v. Robert E. BRINKLEY III. CCA 20100595.
No. 11-0392/AR. U.S.
v. Damon L. ALSUP. CCA 20091114.
No. 11-0439/AR. U.S.
v. Paul D. DELLINGER. CCA 20100648.
No. 11-0441/AR. U.S. v. Oswaldomar RIVERA-MORALES. CCA 20100762.
No. 11-0442/AR. U.S.
v. Donald L. FOXWORTHY. CCA 20090785.
No. 11-0444/AR. U.S.
v. Khalif J. RHODEN. CCA 20100429.
No. 11-0445/AR. U.S.
v. Juan S. MONTEZ. CCA 20100782.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0463/AR. U.S.
v. Jermaine J. JOHNSON. CCA 20090797. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement granted,
up to and including May 24, 2011,
and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be
granted in this case.
No. 11-0475/AR. U.S.
v. Robert L. CONRADY. CCA 20080534. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including June
7, 2011.
No. 11-6003/AR. U.S.
v. Michael A. PRINCE. CCA 20100939. Appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction denied.
No. 11-8024/NA. U.S.
v. John R. DAVENPORT. CCA 201000067. Appellee's motion to extend time to file an
answer to the writ-appeal granted, up to and including May 31, 2011.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-167
Friday, May 13, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0501/AR.
No. 11-0502/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
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, Charleston, Respondents. 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 this date.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-166
Thursday,
May 12, 2011
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No.
11-8026/AF. In re Dustin S. HOGELAND, Petitioner
v. Commander Robert STOVER, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval
Consolidated Brig, Miramar, California. Notice
is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a
writ of habeas corpus, or in the alternative, writ of mandamus, was filed under
Rule 27(a) on this date.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-165
Wednesday, May 11,
2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0389/AR.
I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY TO
FAILURE TO OBEY A GENERAL REGULATION (CHARGE I) WAS IMPROVIDENT BECAUSE THE
MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO SECURE A DISCLAIMER OF THE MISTAKE OF FACT DEFENSE
WHEN IT WAS RAISED DURING THE
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.
No. 11-0420/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 FILED
No. 11-0495/AR.
No. 11-0496/AR.
No. 11-0497/MC.
No. 11-0498/AR.
No. 11-0499/AR.
No. 11-0500/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-164
Tuesday,
May 10, 2011
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0443/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. 11-0382/AR.
No. 11-0428/AR.
No. 11-0429/AR.
No. 11-0430/AF.
No. 11-0432/AF.
No. 11-0435/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0487/AR.
No. 11-0488/AR.
No. 11-0489/AR.
No. 11-0490/AR.
No. 11-0491/AR.
No. 11-0492/AR.
No. 11-0493/AF.
No. 11-0494/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0485/CG.
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-163
Monday, May 9, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0484/AR. U.S.
v. Randall L. WHITE. CCA 20100299.
No. 11-0485/CG. U.S.
v. Royce G. CLIFTON. CCA 1332.
No. 11-0486/NA. U.S.
v. Akeem A. WILKINS. CCA 201000289.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 11-162
Friday, May 6, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0483/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No. 11-161
Thursday, May 5, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0256/MC.
WHETHER
APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT UNDER ARTICLE
120(c)(2), UCMJ, SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT’S DECISIONS
IN UNITED STATES v. NEAL, 68 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2010), AND UNITED STATES v. PRATHER, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
It is
further ordered that the decision of the United States Navy-Marine
Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed as to Charge III and
Specification 1 thereunder and as to the sentence, but affirmed in all
other respects. The findings as to Charge III and Specification 1
thereunder and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is
returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to an
appropriate convening authority who may order a rehearing on the
affected charge and sentence. Alternatively, a rehearing on
sentence only may be ordered with regard to the affirmed findings.
No. 11-0374/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. 11-0318/AF.
No. 11-0425/AF.
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0480/AF.
No. 11-0481/AF.
No. 11-0482/AF.
No. 11-6006/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS
No. 07-0253/NA.
No. 11-0231/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No. 11-160
Wednesday,
May 4, 2011
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0434/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 FILED
No. 11-0477/AR.
No. 11-0478/NA.
No.
11-0479/AR.
MANDATES
ISSUED
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No. 11-159
Tuesday, May
3, 2011
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 11-0397/AR.
No. 11-0411/AF.
No. 11-0421/AR.
No. 11-0423/NA.
No. 11-0424/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
11-0475/AR.
No. 11-0476/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 10-0567/AF.
Monday,
May 2, 2011
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
11-0410/AF.
No.
11-0414/AR.
No. 11-0415/AR.
No.
11-0416/AR.
No.
11-0417/AR.
No.
11-0418/AR.