UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-116
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0515/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 12-0357/MC.
No. 12-0358/AR.
No. 12-0359/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-115
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0277/AF.
No. 12-0279/AR.
No. 12-0284/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-114
Monday, February 27, 2012
APPEALS-SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 12-0269/AR. U.S. v. William P. CALDWELL. CCA 20110538. On consideration of the petition for grant of
review of the decision of the United States Army
Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted,
and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed.* [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
this date.]
* It is directed that the date of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals decision be corrected to 5 January 2012.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0453/AR. U.S. v. Aaron M. MITCHELL. CCA 20100713.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0269/AR. U.S. v. William P. CALDWELL. CCA 20110538.
[See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0265/AR. U.S.
v. Joshua K. WILL. CCA 20100273.
No. 12-0266/AR. U.S.
v. Ryan M. NASMYTH. CCA 20110188.
No. 12-0267/AR. U.S.
v. Derrick A. JOHNS. CCA 20110374.
No. 12-0270/AR. U.S.
v. David L. EASTIN. CCA 20100581.
No. 12-0271/AF. U.S.
v. Craig M. SANDERS. CCA S31941.
No. 12-0273/AF. U.S.
v. Brandon R. BOOTHE. CCA S31943.
No. 12-0274/AF. U.S.
v. Abel T. ORONA. CCA 37815.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0422/AR. U.S.
v. Byron D. TYSON. CCA 20090072.**
No. 11-0565/NA. U.S.
v. Jack C. RUSCITTO. CCA 201100023.**
No. 11-0611/AR. U.S.
v. Luis F. DIETZ. CCA 20081031.**
No. 11-0664/NA. U.S.
v. Derek L. ALLEN. CCA 201100040.**
No. 12-0354/NA. U.S.
v. Markalle D. REDD. CCA 201000682.
No. 12-0355/AR. U.S.
v. Daniel F. WILLIAMS. CCA 20110311.
No. 12-0356/AR. U.S.
v. Russell J. BRAY. CCA 20110419.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
______________________________
** Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-113
Friday, February 24, 2012
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 12-0351/AF.
No. 12-0352/NA.
No. 12-0353/MC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-112
Thursday, February 23, 2012
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0420/AR.
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE
NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE
THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0427/AR.
WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION FAILS TO
STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE
TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0599/AR.
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM SPECIFICATION 1 OF THE CHARGE CANNOT BE NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE
FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0601/AR.
WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE
VI FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR
NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0446/MC.
No. 12-0345/AR.
No. 12-0346/AF.
No. 12-0347/AF.
No. 12-0348/AF.
No. 12-0349/AF.
No. 12-0350/AF.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET FILINGS
Misc. No. 12-8019/NA.
Tarrell D. JILES, Appellant v. Commanding Officer H&S Battalion,
MCB, Quantico, VA, LTCOL Michael F. CARDOZA, In his official capacity as Art.
32, UCMJ, Inv. Officer, and
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 12-0099/AR.
No. 12-6004/AR.
_______________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-111
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0419/AR. U.S. v. Bradley L. GUMP. CCA 20100546.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE V CANNOT BE NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0454/AR. U.S. v. Oren A. REECE. CCA 20100448.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0554/AR. U.S. v. Terry D. RORRO. CCA 20100750.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER SPECIFICATIONS 2, 3, 5, AND
6 OF CHARGE V FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR
NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0661/AR. U.S. v. Joshua J. CHASTAIN. CCA 20100994.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE V CANNOT BE NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0034/AR. U.S. v. Joel L. KAIN, II. CCA 20100490.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE
NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE
THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0222/AR. U.S. v. Terrance L. ABERNATHY. CCA 20110229.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER SPECIFICATIONS 2 AND 3 OF
CHARGE III FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR
NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW
DENIED
No. 12-0250/AF. U.S.
v. Marcus J. BENNETT. CCA S31802.
No. 12-0256/AR. U.S.
v. Kevin L. RITCHSON. CCA 20110572.
No. 12-0257/AR. U.S.
v. Patrick B. HART. CCA 20110215.
No. 12-0258/AR. U.S.
v. Diener VASCONCELOS. CCA 20110303.
No. 12-0261/AF. U.S.
v. Christopher P. GOMEZ. CCA S31937.
No. 12-0262/AR. U.S.
v. Adam J. DEMANCHE II. CCA 20110328.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0614/NA. U.S. v. Abayomi O. KALEJAIYE. CCA 201100007.*
No. 12-0341/MC. U.S.
v. Jonathan EGNASH. CCA 201100171.
No. 12-0342/AR. U.S.
v. Shanadra N. WILSON. CCA 20110166.
No. 12-0343/AR. U.S.
v. Kevin C. HAIL. CCA 20110054.
No. 12-0344/NA. U.S.
v. Calvin A. PRINCE II. CCA 201100161.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 12-8011/AR.
U.S. v. Charles A. GRANER, Jr. On
consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said petition is
denied.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-0231/AR. U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER, Jr. CCA 9601044.
______________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-110
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 12-0149/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. STADEL. CCA 20090820.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE MILITARY JUDGE'S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL THAT
IT COULD CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF CONSENT IN DECIDING WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT PROVED
THAT THE ACT WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY FORCE.
Briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 12-0339/AR. U.S.
v. Maurice D. FLETCHER. CCA 20110168.
No. 12-0340/AR. U.S.
v. Renaldo R. FEBRES. CCA 20100436.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 12-0206/AR. U.S. v. Tommie L. OLDS. CCA 20091044.
On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of
the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the pleadings filed in
this case, it is ordered that
Appellee file a substantive answer on the following issues raised by Appellant:
No. 12-8017/AR. Ronald
GRAY, Appellant v. Eric BELCHER, Colonel, U.S. Army, Commandant, U.S.
Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. CCA 20110093. On consideration of the motion filed by Billy H. Nolas, Esq., Shawn Nolan,
Esq., and Timothy Patrick Kane, Esq., for leave of Court to appear pro hac
vice, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.
No. 12-8017/AR. Ronald
GRAY, Appellant v. Eric BELCHER, Colonel, U.S. Army, Commandant, U.S.
Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. CCA 20110093.
Appellee's motion to extend time to file an answer to the writ-appeal
petition is granted to March 12, 2012.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-109
Friday, February 17, 2012
PETITIONS
FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0219/AR.
No. 12-0253/AF.
No. 12-0254/AF.
No. 12-6003/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0655/AF.
No. 12-0337/AF.
No. 12-0338/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 12-0331/AR.
No. 12-8014/MC. Shawn
C. BLAIR, Appellant v. William Riggs, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, in
his official capacity as Military Judge, and The United States, Appellees. CCA 201200018. Appellant's
motion to attach documents is granted, and Appellee's motion to attach
documents is granted.
________________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-108
Thursday, February 16, 2012
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 12-0194/AR. U.S. v. Evan VELA. CCA 20080133.
Review granted on the following issues:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN
DENYING THE DEFENSE'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR DISQUALIFY UNDER UNITED STATES v.
KASTIGAR.
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF GUILTY TO CHARGE III.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0566/MC. U.S.
v. Alan D. SOBENES. CCA 201000381.*
No. 11-0610/AR. U.S.
v. Marcus MELCHOR. CCA 20100272.
No. 12-0331/AR. U.S.
v. Jamil V. WILLIAMS. CCA 20090619.*
No. 12-0332/AF. U.S.
v. Kyle L. SUMMERELL. CCA S31955.
No. 12-0333/AF. U.S.
v. Christopher F. SPOSETO. CCA S31852.
No. 12-0334/AF. U.S.
v. Johnathon W. BURLEY. CCA S31866.
No. 12-0335/AR. U.S.
v. Daniel A. HEIM. CCA 20110646.
No. 12-0336/AR. U.S. v. Christopher L. COVINGTON. CCA 20090877.
______________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-107
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 12-0172/NA.
APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH, INTER
ALIA, ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER UNDER ARTICLE 134, UCMJ. BUT THE SPECIFICATION FAILED TO ALLEGE THE
TERMINAL ELEMENT. THE MEMBERS FOUND
APPELLANT NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE, BUT GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
UNDER ARTICLE 128, UCMJ, AS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN
HOLDING THAT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT IS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF AN ARTICLE 134
SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT?
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 12-0224/AF.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT MISAPPLIED UNITED
STATES v. FOSLER AND UNITED STATES v. WATKINS IN FINDING THAT, DESPITE
FAILING TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATION
HERE STATES AN OFFENSE.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0251/AF.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED
HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE INFORMED THE MEMBERS OF APPELLANT'S ILLEGAL PRETRIAL
PUNISHMENT CREDIT AND THEN FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS BASED ON A SUBMITTED
QUESTION THAT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO NULLIFY SOME OR ALL OF THAT CREDIT BY INCREASING
THE SENTENCE.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0437/MC.
No. 11-0575/NA.
No. 12-0327/MC.
No. 12-0328/AR.
No. 12-0329/MC.
No. 12-0330/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
______________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-106
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
HEARINGS
No. 11-5005/MC. U.S.
v. Jeremy J. NASH. CCA 201000220.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0374/AR. U.S. v. Lelan M. SHANKLES. CCA 20100307.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE
IV FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR
NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0057/AR. U.S. v. Roy E. BUHROW III. CCA 20100911.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS CHARGE III
FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 12-0230/AR. U.S. v. Jeffery
A. HOBART. CCA 20100119.
Review granted on the following issue:
DID THE LOWER COURT MISAPPLY UNITED
STATES v. FOSLER IN FINDING THAT, DESPITE FAILING TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE THE
TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATIONS WERE NOT SO DEFECTIVE AS TO
WARRANT DISMISSAL?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0263/AR. U.S. v. Kevin D. GOODMAN. CCA 20110144.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 2 AND 3 OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE
NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE
THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0275/AF. U.S. v. Joshua S. FLEURY. CCA S31944. 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
OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0278/AR. U.S. v. Richard J. MCINNISH. CCA 20090923.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2 AND 3 OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE
NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS
THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0248/AF. U.S.
v. Eric L. BROWN. CCA 37851.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0638/AR. U.S.
v. Edgar E. MARTINEZ. CCA 20090582.*
No. 12-0320/AF. U.S.
v. Chadrick L. CAPEL. CCA S31819.
No. 12-0321/AR. U.S. v. Christopher C. CHAMPION. CCA 20100926.
No. 12-0322/AR. U.S.
v. Latretta S. CLEMONS. CCA 20110633.
No. 12-0323/AF. U.S.
v. David G. CONN. CCA S31949.
No. 12-0324/AF. U.S.
v. Danny SANTOS. CCA S31916.
No. 12-0325/AF. U.S.
v. Luke R. ALLISON. CCA 37883.
No. 12-0326/AR. U.S.
v. Dennis Q. GIEBLER. CCA 20100842.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
Misc. No. 12-8016/AR. Edwin M. ACKERMAN, Petitioner v.
United States, Respondent.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0474/AR. U.S.
v. Antony P. KNOWLAND. CCA 20071405. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.
No. 11-0496/AR. U.S.
v. Christopher D. RICE. CCA 20090857. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.
No. 12-0264/AR. U.S.
v. Robert O. BOZEMAN. CCA 20080711. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted up to and including
February 27, 2012, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in
this case.
No. 12-0312/AR. U.S.
v. Michael P. NETTLES. CCA 20091032. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.
No. 12-0317/AF. U.S.
v. Ronnie WILSON. CCA 37486. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to March 5, 2012.
No. 12-5001/AF. U.S.,
Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. Daniel J. DATAVS, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. CCA 37537.
Cross-Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted to March 1, 2012.
No. 12-6004/AR. U.S.
v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914. Appellant's motion to submit redacted joint
appendix is granted.
No. 12-6004/AR. U.S.
v. Eric W. COOPER. CCA 20110914. Appellee's motion to extend time to file a
brief granted, up to and including
February 24, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further
extension of time will be granted in this case.
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-105
Monday, February 13, 2012
HEARINGS
No. 10-5004/AF.
No. 12-0090/AF.
CERTIFICATES FOR REVIEW
FILED
No. 12-6005/AF.
I. WHETHER THE
PRE-AMENDED CHARGE AND SPECIFICATION FOR INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD IN
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, NECESSARILY IMPLIED THE TERMINAL ELEMENT AND,
THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFICATION CONSTITUTED A MINOR CHANGE.
II. WHETHER APPELLEE
PROPERLY CHALLENGED THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CHARGE AND SPECIFICATION FOR
INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ, WHEN HE DID NOT
MOVE TO DISMISS THE SPECIFICATION FOR FAILING TO STATE AN OFFENSE AT TRIAL AND
PRESERVE A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF THE SPECIFICATION PURSUANT TO UNITED
STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
Appellee will file an answer under
Rule 22(b)(1) on or before February 23, 2012.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0246/AR.
No. 12-0247/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW
FILED
No. 11-0474/AR.
No. 11-0496/AR.
No. 12-0312/AR.
No. 12-0313/MC.
No. 12-0314/AF.
No. 12-0315/AF.
No. 12-0316/AF.
No. 12-0317/AF.
No. 12-0318/AR.
No. 12-0319/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 11-0282/AR.
*
Second petition filed in this
case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-104
Friday, February 10, 2012
CERTIFICATES
FOR REVIEW FILED
No. 12-5001/AF. U.S., Appellant
v. Daniel J. DATAVS, Appellee. CCA 37537.
Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of
the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22
this date on the following issue:
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS INCORRECTLY APPLIED THE STANDARD OF LAW UNDER STRICKLAND v.
WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) AND HARRINGTON v. RICHTER, 131 S.CT.
770 (2011), WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR
NOT SEEKING EXPERT ASSISTANCE DURING TRIAL AFTER THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPERT
WITNESS TESTIFIED.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0226/AR. U.S.
v. Ryan D. PAGE. CCA 20100083.
No. 12-0241/AF. U.S.
v. Kayla L. PIXLER. CCA S31934.
No. 12-0242/AF. U.S.
v. Allan T. STEIN, IV. CCA S31924.
No. 12-0243/AF. U.S.
v. David W. WENTWORTH. CCA 37852.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0368/AR. U.S.
v. Brantley R. TYSON. CCA 20100093.*
No. 12-0309/AR. U.S.
v. John P. CRAWFORD. CCA 20110154.
No. 12-0310/AF. U.S.
v. David W. SHANTEAU. CCA 37969.
No. 12-0311/AF. U.S. v.
William R. MULLEN. CCA 37959.
No. 12-5001/AF. U.S.
v. Daniel J. DATAVS. CCA 37537.
_________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-103
Thursday, February 9, 2012
APPEALS
- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No. 12-0171/AR.
* It is directed that the promulgating order be
corrected to change the sentencing date from 22 Jul 09 to 18 Jun 09.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION
FOR REVIEW
No. 12-0046/AR.
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL
ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM
THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0171/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0181/AF.
No. 12-0218/AR.
No. 12-0235/AF.
No. 12-0237/AR.
No. 12-0238/AF.
No. 12-0239/AF.
No. 12-0240/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 12-0306/AF.
No. 12-0307/AR.
No. 12-0308/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-102
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 11-0434/AR. U.S. v. David J. ISENHOWER. CCA 20100354.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE IV
FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY
IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 11-0580/AR. U.S. v. Gregory A. ROBINSON. CCA 20100495.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
No. 12-0202/NA. U.S. v. Michael IGNACIO. CCA 201100062.
Review granted on the following issue:
IN AN ARTICLE 120(h), UCMJ, CASE,
THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE MEMBERS TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE OF CONSENT, WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT PROVED GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. PRATHER,
AND UNITED STATES v. CHEESEMAN, DOES THE APPLICATION OF THE AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 120 WITHOUT THE AFOREMENTIONED INSTRUCTION VIOLATE
APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS?
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 12-0249/AR. U.S. v. Thomas E. DURHAM. CCA 20100488.
Review granted on the following issue:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE
AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS
THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE "NECESSARILY IMPLIED" FROM THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING
TERMINAL ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 THROUGH 16 OF THE CHARGE CANNOT BE
NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE
THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0105/AF. U.S.
v. William T. HALEY. CCA 37565.*
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 12-0181/AF. U.S.
v. Douglas L. PAGE, Jr. CCA 37612. Appellant's motion to supplement the record is
denied.
______________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-101
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No. 12-0173/NA.
No. 12-0227/AR.
No. 12-0231/AR.
No. 12-0232/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0476/AR.
No. 12-0301/CG.
No. 12-0302/AR.
No. 12-0303/AR.
No. 12-0304/AR.
No. 12-0305/AR.
CERTIFICATES OF REVIEW
FILED
No. 12-6004/AR.
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE AND THE ARMY
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING MICHIGAN v. MOSLEY, 423 U.S.
96 (1975) AS OPPOSED TO OREGON v. BRADSHAW, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) AND EDWARDS
v. ARIZONA, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED'S STATEMENT
WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE.
III. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THE ACCUSED'S
ENTIRE TYPEWRITTEN STATEMENT BASED ON A SECOND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT
TO REMAIN SILENT.
Appellee's answer under Rule
22(b)(1) will be filed on or before February 17, 2012.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 12-8015/NA.
James Melvin LEWIS, Petitioner, v.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
Misc. No. 12-8015/NA.
James Melvin LEWIS, Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0525/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-100
Monday, February 6, 2012
INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS
No. 11-0640/AR.
No. 12-0182/AR.
No. 12-0300/AR.
MANDATES ISSUED
No. 10-0178/AF.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-099
Friday, February 3,
2012
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 12-0297/AR.
No. 12-0298/AR.
No. 12-0299/AF.
No. 12-0300/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No. 12-8012/AF. In
Re David J.A. GUTIERREZ. On consideration of the petition for
extraordinary relief in the nature of an emergency stay, said petition is
denied.
Misc. No. 12-8013/AF.
David J.A. GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 10-5004/AF.
No. 11-5005/MC.
No. 12-0090/AF.
In view of the existence of a vacant
position on the Court, notice is hereby given that the Chief Judge has called
upon Senior Judge Andrew S. Effron to perform
judicial duties in the above-referenced cases, and that Senior Judge Effron has consented to perform judicial duties in said
cases under Article 142(e)(1)(A)(ii), Uniform Code of
Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 942(e)(1)(A)(ii)
(2006).
No. 12-0164/AR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-098
Thursday, February 2, 2012
ORDERS
GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 12-0180/MC.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT MISAPPLIED UNITED
STATES v. FOSLER AND UNITED STATES v. WATKINS IN FINDING THAT, DESPITE
FAILING TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE ARTICLE 134
SPECIFICATIONS HERE STATE AN OFFENSE.
No briefs will be filed under Rule
25.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0303/MC.
No. 11-0514/NA.
No. 12-0294/AR.
No. 12-0295/AR.
No. 12-0296/MC.
______________________________
*
Second petition filed in this
case.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
No. 12-097
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No. 11-0601/AR. U.S.
v. Robert A. MOORE. CCA 20100662.*
No. 12-0293/NA. U.S.
v. Adam G. HALL. CCA 201000671.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET -
FILINGS
Misc. No.
12-8014/MC. Shawn C. BLAIR, Appellant v.
William Riggs, Colonel, United States Marine Corps in his official capacity as
Military Judge, and The United States, Appellees. CCA 201200018. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal
petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed
under Rule 27(b) on this date.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 11-0362/AR. U.S.
v. Thomas G. GENTRY. CCA 20080985. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including February 15, 2012, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in
this case.
No. 11-0629/AR. U.S.
v. Jesse V. SPIELMAN. CCA 20070883. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including February 15, 2012, and absent
extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in
this case.
No. 12-0030/AR. U.S.
v. Michael C. BEHENNA. CCA 20090234. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief
granted, but only up to and including
February 28, 2012, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension
of time will be granted in this case.
No. 12-0203/AR. U.S.
v. Jacob A. RACINE. CCA 20100021. On consideration of the motion filed by
Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan F. Potter to withdraw from representation as
Appellate Defense Counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has
assigned another counsel to represent Appellant and that the new counsel has
assumed representation of said Appellant.
Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.
______________________________
* Second petition filed in this case.
Home Page
| Opinions & Digest
| Daily
Journal | Scheduled Hearings
| Search Site