UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Friday,
December 30, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0168/MC. U.S. v. David R. Rendon. CCA 201500408.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday,
December 29, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0162/NA. U.S. v. Keith Barry.
CCA
201500064.
No. 17-0163/MC. U.S. v. Joseph J. Faggiole. CCA 201600038.
No. 17-0164/AR. U.S. v. Corey J. Brookshire. CCA 20160332.
No. 17-0165/AR. U.S. v. Anthony T. Gardner. CCA 20140800.
No. 17-0166/AR. U.S. v. Dustyn
R. Kidd.
CCA
20150280.
No. 17-0167/AR. U.S. v. Noel G. Aguiar-Perez. CCA 20140715.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0060/NA. U.S. v. Matthew I. Wilson.
CCA
201600194.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 16-0641/AR. U.S. v. Ian T. Miller. CCA 20150170. Appellee's motion to supplement the record is granted.
No. 16-0650/AR. U.S. v. Courtney A. Craig. CCA 20150272. Appellee's motion to supplement the record is granted.
No. 17-0153/AR. U.S. v. Edward J. Mitchell II. CCA 20150776. Appellee's motion for an enlargement of time to file a
brief is granted to January 18, 2017.
No. 17-0161/AR. U.S. v. Marshall D. Drake, Jr. CCA 20130414. Appellant's motion to extend time to file
the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 17, 2017.
No. 17-0162/NA. U.S. v. Keith Barry.
CCA
201500064. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to
the petition for grant of review granted to January 18, 2017.
No. 17-0163/MC. U.S. v. Joseph J. Faggiole. CCA 201600038. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of
review granted to January 18, 2017.
No. 17-0164/AR. U.S. v. Corey J. Brookshire. CCA 20160332. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of
review granted to January 13, 2017.
Special Docket
Matters
No.
A-33205. In the Matter of Jeffrey D.
Moffatt. It appearing that the above-named
attorney is a member of the Bar of this Court and that he has been disbarred
from the practice of law by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Arizona
State Bar, that pursuant to Rule 15(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, U.S.
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 why he should
not be disbarred, that said attorney filed a timely response to the show cause
order in which he moved to vacate the order of suspension, requested an
in-person hearing, and notified the Court of his appeal of the Presiding
Disciplinary Judge's order of disbarment to the Arizona Supreme Court, and
considering the serious nature of his misconduct and the denial of his appeal
by the Arizona Supreme Court on December 13, 2016, it is by the Court, this 29th
day of December, 2016, ordered that the motion to vacate the order of
suspension is denied, that the request for an in-person hearing is denied, and
that Jeffrey D. Moffatt is hereby disbarred from the
practice of law before this Court effective the date of this Order.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday,
December 28, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0161/AR. U.S. v. Marshall D. Drake, Jr. CCA 20130414.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Tuesday,
December 27, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0158/AR. U.S. v. Ronny L. Cade, Jr. CCA 20140325.
No. 17-0159/AR. U.S. v. Jeffrey Soria. CCA
20150537.
No. 17-0160/AR. U.S. v. Steven M. Tucker. CCA
20150634.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0061/AR. U.S. v. Michael E. Paradiso. CCA
20150186.
No. 17-0096/AR. U.S. v. Jonathan Guzman. CCA
20140465.
No. 17-0097/CG. U.S. v. Johannes P.
Boerlage. CCA 1423.
No. 17-0100/MC. U.S. v. Blake D. Evans. CCA
201600085.
No. 17-0103/MC. U.S. v. Anthony D. Delagarza. CCA
201600281.
No. 17-0104/MC. U.S. v. Tyler W. Hartmann. CCA
201600291.
Petitions for Grant of Review -
Summary Dispositions
No. 16-0616/AF. U.S. v. Kelvin L. O'Shaughnessy.
CCA 38732. On further
consideration of the granted issue (Daily Journal Nov. 29, 2016), the facts
that the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals issued its judgment
in Appellant's case on May 5, 2016, and Colonel Martin T. Mitchell was
appointed by the President to the United States Court of Military Commission
Review on May 25, 2016, and in light of United States v. Dalmazzi, __
M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016), it is ordered that the order of November 29,
2016, granting review is hereby vacated, and Appellant's petition for grant of
review is denied.
No. 16-0617/AF. U.S. v. Joseph D. Morchinek. CCA S32291. On further consideration of the granted
issue (Daily Journal Oct. 18, 2016), the facts that the United States Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals issued its judgment in Appellant's case on May 9,
2016, and Colonel Martin T. Mitchell was appointed by the President to the
United States Court of Military Commission Review on May 25, 2016, and in light
of United States v. Dalmazzi, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016), it is
ordered that the order of October 18, 2016, granting review is hereby vacated,
and Appellant's petition for grant of review is denied.
No. 16-0660/AF. U.S. v. Andre K. Lewis. CCA 38671. On further consideration of the granted
issue (Daily Journal Dec. 19, 2016), the facts that the United States Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals issued its judgment in Appellant's case on May 17,
2016, and Colonel Martin T. Mitchell was appointed by the President to the
United States Court of Military Commission Review on May 25, 2016, and in light
of United States v. Dalmazzi, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016), it is
ordered that the order of December 19, 2016, granting review is hereby vacated,
and Appellant's petition for grant of review is denied.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 16-0641/AR. U.S. v. Ian T. Miller. CCA
20150170. On further consideration of the granted issues (Daily Journal,
Nov. 30, 2016), it does not appear there is adequate evidence in the record
demonstrating that Judge Celtnieks was appointed to the United States Court of
Military Commission Review and sworn as a judge of that court. Accordingly, it
is ordered that within 10 days of the date of this Order, counsel for the
parties shall file documentation with the Court relating to the appointment of
Judge Celtnieks to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and
establishing the date when he took the oath of office to execute the
appointment.
No. 16-0650/AR. U.S. v. Courtney A. Craig. CCA
20150272. On further consideration of the granted issues (Daily Journal,
Oct. 20, 2016), it does not appear there is adequate evidence in the record
demonstrating that Judge Herring and Judge Burton were appointed to the United
States Court of Military Commission Review and sworn as judges of that court.
Accordingly, it is ordered that within 10 days of the date of this Order,
counsel for the parties shall file documentation with the Court relating to the
appointments of Judges Herring and Burton to the United States Court of
Military Commission Review, and establishing the date when they took the oath
of office to execute the appointments.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Friday,
December 23, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0155/AF. U.S. v. Michael L.
Merritt. CCA 38819.
No. 17-0156/AF. U.S. v. Joseph R. Scher. CCA S32329.
No. 17-0157/AF. U.S. v. David W. Turner
II. CCA S32317.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 16-0705/AR. U.S. v. Sean R. Erikson. CCA 20150130. On
consideration of Appellee's motion to file a
supplemental joint appendix and Appellant's motion extend time to file a reply
brief, it is ordered that Appellee's motion to file a
supplemental joint appendix is hereby granted, and Appellant's motion to extend
time to file a reply brief is granted to January 6, 2017.
No. 16-0731/AR. U.S. v. Austin L. Hendrix. CCA 20140476. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file a brief granted to January 26, 2017.
No. 17-0079/AF. United States,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Patrick Carter, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. CCA 38708. Appellee/Cross-Appellant's motion to dismiss the certificate
for grant of review is denied.
No. 17-0138/AF. U.S. v. Jason K. Slape. CCA 38801. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 9, 2017.
No. 17-0139/AR. United States, Cross-Appellant/Appellee v. Justin M. Gurczyski,
Cross-Appellee/Appellant. CCA 20160402. Cross-Appellee/Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief
granted to January 18, 2017.
No. 17-0142/AR. U.S. v. Antione
D. Williams.
CCA
20130446. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to
the petition for grant of review granted to January 11, 2017.
No. 17-0143/CG. U.S. v. Ernest M. Ramos.
CCA 1418.
Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant
of review granted to January 11, 2017.
No. 17-0148/AF. U.S. v. Stephen H.
Claxton. CCA 38188. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to January 11, 2017.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday,
December 22, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0142/AR. U.S. v. Antione
D. Williams.
CCA
20130446.
No. 17-0143/CG. U.S.
v. Ernest M. Ramos. CCA 1418.
No. 17-0144/AR. U.S. v. Adam D. Bigelow. CCA 20150349.
No. 17-0145/AR. U.S. v. Michael C. Morrill. CCA 20140197.
No. 17-0146/AR. U.S. v. Jason M. Alston. CCA 20140566.
No. 17-0147/AR. U.S. v. Karena
A. Dupree.
CCA
20150259.
No. 17-0148/AF. U.S. v. Stephen H. Claxton.
CCA 38188.
No. 17-0149/AF. U.S. v. Michael S. Ingram.
CCA 38849.
No. 17-0150/AF. U.S. v. Anthony M. Flackus. CCA 38847.
No. 17-0151/AR. U.S. v. Dayshawn
M. Guice. CCA 20150774.
No. 17-0152/AR. U.S. v. Michael A. Russell. CCA 20150397.
No. 17-0154/AF. U.S. v. Jonathan L. Roe.
CCA
S32322.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0020/NA. U.S. v. Danny Soto.
CCA
201500384.
No. 17-0089/AR. U.S. v. Joshua T. Blazer. CCA 20150135.
Certificates for Review Filed
No. 17-0153/AR. United
States, Appellant v. Edward J. Mitchell, II, Appellee. CCA 20150776. Notice is hereby given that a certificate
for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
10 U.S.C. § 862, and a supporting brief under Rule
22, together with a motion to stay trial proceedings were filed on this date on
the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S
SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE IS VIOLATED WHEN A SUSPECT VOLUNTARILY UNLOCKS HIS
PHONE WITHOUT GIVING HIS PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER TO INVESTIGATORS.
II. WHETHER THE EDWARDS
RULE IS VIOLATED WHEN INVESTIGATORS ASK A SUSPECT, WHO HAS REQUESTED COUNSEL
AND RETURNED TO HIS PLACE OF DUTY, TO UNLOCK HIS PHONE INCIDENT TO A VALID
SEARCH AUTHORIZATION.
III.
WHETHER, ASSUMING INVESTIGATORS VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE
OR THE EDWARDS RULE, THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 16-0745/AR. U.S.
v. Andrew D. Griffith. CCA 20150195. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON.
II. WHETHER, AS
APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0028/CG. U.S. v. Shane E. Reese. CCA 1422. On consideration of
the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Coast
Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby
granted on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN
ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A MAJOR CHANGE TO A SPECIFICATION AFTER THE
COMPLAINING WITNESS'S TESTIMONY DID NOT SUPPORT THE OFFENSE AS ORIGINALLY
CHARGED.
II.
WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE
WHERE THE TERMINAL ELEMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE WORDS OF CRIMINALITY AND WHERE THE
ALLEGED CONDUCT FELL WITHIN A LISTED OFFENSE OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0048/AR. U.S.
v. David J. Dorris. CCA 20140185. 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 on the following issue
specified by the Court:
WHETHER JUDGE HERRING, A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF MILITARY
COMMISSION REVIEW, WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF HE WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO
THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER HIS SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED
THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0093/AR. U.S.
v. Michael B. O'Connor. CCA 20130853. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
PAULETTE V. BURTON AND JAMES W. HERRING AS CMCR
JUDGES MEANT THAT THEY NO LONGER MET THE UCMJ
DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
II.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE TRIBUNAL
VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday,
December 21, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0140/AR. U.S. v. Kellan D. Mark. CCA
20160301.
No. 17-0141/AR. U.S. v. Raymond J. Cooper. CCA
20150425.
Certificates for Review Filed
No. 17-0139/AR. United States, Appellant v. Justin M.
Gurczyski, Appellee. CCA 20160402. Notice is hereby
given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army
Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following
issue:
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY A DIGITAL
FORENSIC EXAMINER DISCOVERED DURING A SEARCH FOR APPELLEE'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH
A CHILD VICTIM.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Monday,
December 19, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0133/AR. U.S. v. Paul E. Thomas. CCA 20150269.
No. 17-0134/AR. U.S. v. Olanrewaju
O. Dairo. CCA 20160213.
No. 17-0135/AR. U.S. v. Nathaneal
H. Ramos.
CCA
20140475.
No. 17-0136/NA. U.S. v. Jonathan C.
Golden. CCA 201600046.
No. 17-0137/AF. U.S. v. Daniel J. Rodgers.
CCA 38832.
No. 17-0138/AF. U.S. v. Jason K. Slape. CCA 38801.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0071/AR. U.S. v. Sean D. Thomas. CCA 20150205.
No. 17-0076/AF. U.S. v. Jerimia D. Wood. CCA S32346.
No. 17-0080/CG. U.S. v. Daniel G. Eyer. CCA 1417.
No. 17-0085/AF. U.S. v. Robert A. Carrubba. CCA S32341.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 16-0660/AF. U.S. v. Andre K. Lewis. CCA 38671. On consideration of the petition for
grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the
following issue:
WHETHER
JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL, A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW,
WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,
AND EVEN IF HE WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE AIR FORCE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER HIS SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE
APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0008/AR. U.S.
v. Matthew R. Strempler. CCA 20150527. On consideration of
the Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's Order issued
November 8, 2016, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is
hereby granted, that the Order of November 8, 2016, denying the petition for
grant of review is hereby vacated, and that the petition for grant of review is
hereby granted on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT
MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0067/AR. U.S.
v. Anthony K. Bickerstaff. CCA 20160065. 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 on the following
issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT
MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0074/AR. U.S.
v. Jose L. Nataren. CCA 20130413. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT
MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0083/AR. U.S.
v. Thomas L. Humburd, Jr. CCA
20150214. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT
MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0094/AR. U.S.
v. Jeffrey W. Thompson, Jr. CCA 20160169. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGES
BURTON AND CELTNIEKS.
II.
WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES
BURTON AND CELTNIEKS DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Friday,
December 16, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0128/AR. U.S. v. Anthony E. Perez. CCA
20160256.
No. 17-0129/AR. U.S. v. Khristophor M. Villar. CCA
20160117.
No. 17-0130/AR. U.S. v. Seddrick M. Rhodes. CCA
20160265.
No. 17-0131/AR. U.S. v. Cameron J. Conrad. CCA
20150721.
No. 17-0132/AR. U.S. v. Scott E. Kissell. CCA
20160014.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 16-0671/AF. U.S. v. Keanu D.W. Ortiz. CCA 38839. On further consideration of the
granted issues in the above-entitled case (Daily Journal, October 27, 2016), it
is ordered that Issue II is hereby amended as follows:
II.
WHETHER JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL'S
SERVICE ON BOTH THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS
STATUS AS A PRINCIPAL OFFICER ON THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.
The
petition for grant of review is also granted on the following specified issue:
III.
WHETHER JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL WAS IN
FACT A PRINCIPAL OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF
10 U.S.C. § 949b(4)(C) AND (D), AUTHORIZING
REASSIGNMENT OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES SO APPOINTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OR HIS DESIGNEE.
The
parties will file contemporaneous briefs and a joint appendix on the granted
issues as amended and the specified issue on or before January 24, 2017. Reply
briefs will not be filed. Amicus curiae
briefs under Rule 26(a)(1) will be filed on or before January
24, 2017, and motions for leave to file amicus
curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(3) will be filed on or before January 17,
2017. Should said motions be granted, amicus
curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(3) will also be
filed on or before January 24, 2017.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 16-0705/AR. U.S. v. Sean R. Erikson. CCA 20150130. On
consideration of the Hearing Notice issued December 13, 2016, setting the
above-mentioned case for oral argument, it is ordered that said hearing notice
is hereby rescinded. Appellee's motion to reschedule
oral argument is hereby denied as moot, and oral argument for the
above-mentioned case will be rescheduled for a later date specified by the
Court.
No. 16-0689/AF. U.S. v. Charles D. Buford.
CCA
2016-04. On consideration of the Hearing Notice issued December 13, 2016,
setting the above-mentioned case for oral argument, it is ordered that said
hearing notice is hereby rescinded, and that oral argument for the
above-mentioned case will be rescheduled for a later date specified by the
Court.
No. 16-0731/AR. U.S. v. Austin L. Hendrix. CCA 20140476. On consideration of the Hearing Notice issued
December 15, 2016, setting the above-mentioned case for oral argument, it is
ordered that said hearing notice is hereby rescinded, and that oral argument
for the above-mentioned case will be rescheduled for a later date specified by
the Court.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday,
December 15, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0125/AR. U.S. v. Joshua G. Thomas. CCA 20150393.
No. 17-0126/AF. U.S. v. Austin R. Swanson.
CCA 38827.
No. 17-0127/AF. U.S. v. Matthew M.R. Booth. CCA 38850.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0075/AF. U.S. v. James B. Richey.
CCA
S32362.
Petitions for Grant of Review -
Summary Dispositions
No. 17-0082/AR. U.S.
v. Walter L. Graham, Jr. CCA 20150364. 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.*
* It is noted that the
decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly
summarized the findings. The lower court stated that Appellant pleaded guilty
to four specifications of forcibly sodomizing his stepdaughter. Actually, Appellant
pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, three specifications of forcible
sodomy.
Miscellaneous Docket - Summary
Dispositions
No. 17-0099/AR. In Re Timothy B. Hennis. On consideration of the petition for
extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ, and Petitioner's motion to stay proceedings of the United States Army
Court of Criminal Appeals pending petition for extraordinary writ, it is
ordered that said motion is hereby denied, and said petition is hereby denied
without prejudice to raising the issues asserted during the course of normal
appellate review.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 16-0727/AF. U.S. v. James W. Richards IV. CCA 38346. On consideration of the petition for
grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the
following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE PANEL OF AFCCA THAT HEARD APPELLANT'S CASE WAS IMPROPERLY
CONSTITUTED.
II. WHETHER THE 9 NOVEMBER
2011 SEARCH AUTHORIZATION WAS OVERBROAD IN FAILING TO LIMIT THE DATES OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS BEING SEARCHED, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue II only.
No. 17-0063/AF. U.S. v. Jerry C. Harrison. CCA 38745. On consideration of the petition for
grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the
following issue:
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE MEMBERS, "IF BASED ON YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ACCUSED IS
GUILTY OF ANY OFFENSE CHARGED, YOU MUST FIND HIM GUILTY," WHERE SUCH AN
INSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY CO.,
430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977) AND THERE IS INCONSISTENT APPLICATION BETWEEN THE
SERVICES OF THE INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO WHEN MEMBERS MUST OR SHOULD CONVICT AN
ACCUSED.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday,
December 14, 2016
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 17-0041/AR. U.S.
v. Justin M. Gurczynski. CCA 20140518. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE HERRING
AND JUDGE BURTON.
II. WHETHER, AS
APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE
BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE
MILITARY JUDGES.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0044/AR. U.S.
v. Andy Delvalle. CCA 20160157. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED
THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE
BURTON.
II. WHETHER, AS
APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0059/AR. U.S.
v. Ethan J. Markley. CCA 20140956. 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 on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT
MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF AN APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED
THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0070/AR. U.S.
v. Kyle W. Miner. CCA 20160268. 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 on the following issue:
WHETHER
JUDGE LARSS G. CELTNIEKS,
JUDGE ON THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO
SIT ON THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF HE WAS STATUTORILY
AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER HIS
SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS NEWLY
ATTAINED STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0073/AR. U.S.
v. William C. Millay. CCA 20130341. 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 on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT
MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF AN APPELLATE MILITARY
JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0077/AR. U.S.
v. Salvador Jimenez-Victoria. CCA 20140733. 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 on the following
issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT
MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Tuesday,
December 13, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0123/AF. U.S. v. Courtney R.
Canada. CCA S32298.
No. 17-0124/AR. U.S. v. Phillip S. Lewis, Jr. CCA 20160329.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 16-0759/AR. U.S.
v. Karina Flores-Santos. CCA 20140066. On consideration of Appellant's motion to attach
exhibits and petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States
Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said motion is denied, and that
said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM PRESIDING IN APPELLANT'S CASE WHERE HE
PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS CHIEF OF JUSTICE AND SUPERVISED ALL PROSECUTIONS FOR
APPELLANT'S UNIT, AND HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE FULL EXTENT OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES
AND ACTIONS FROM HIS PRIOR POSITION, INCLUDING CONSULTING ON CASES AT THE PRE-PREFERRAL AND INVESTIGATION STAGE.
The
decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside, and
the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to an
appropriate convening authority to order a hearing pursuant to United States
v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A.
147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), to make findings of fact and
conclusions of law related to the matter underlying the granted issue. At the conclusion
of the DuBay hearing, the record will be
transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article
66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2012). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2012),
shall apply.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Monday,
December 12, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0120/AR. U. S. v. Darreus J. Kemp. CCA
20160214.
No. 17-0121/AR. U.S. v. Elvis R. Garcia. CCA
20150715.
No. 17-0122/AF. U.S. v. William L.
Wareham. CCA 38820.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0018/AR. U.S. v. Alan R. Shurtleff. CCA
20140633.
No. 17-0033/MC. U.S. v. Christopher M. Henegar. CCA
201500379.
No. 17-0043/AR. U.S. v. Eugene J. Clement. CCA
20140502.
Miscellaneous Docket - Summary
Dispositions
No. 17-0098/AF. Yogendra Rambharose, Petitioner v. United
States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent. On consideration of the
petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, it is
ordered that said petition is hereby denied.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 16-0586/MC. U.S.
v. Nhubu C. Chikaka. CCA
201400251.
On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the
United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that
said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:
I.
WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE ADMITTED ON THE
MERITS A CAMPAIGN PLAN TO "FULLY OPERATIONALIZE THE COMMANDANT'S
GUIDANCE" FROM THE HERITAGE TOUR, AND THEN DURING SENTENCING ADMITTED A
PICTURE OF THE COMMANDANT AND ALLOWED APPELLANT'S COMMANDING OFFICER TO TESTIFY
THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE MEMBERS TO ADJUDGE A HARSH SENTENCE, DID THE
LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIND EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE
SUFFICIENT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DISPROVE UNLAWFUL COMMAND
INFLUENCE IN THIS CASE?
II.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS, "IF,
BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE
ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, YOU MUST FIND HIM GUILTY," WHERE
SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY
CO., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977), AND THERE IS INCONSISTENT APPLICATION
BETWEEN THE SERVICES OF THE INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO WHEN MEMBERS MUST OR
SHOULD CONVICT AN ACCUSED.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.*
* Judge Ryan has recused herself in
this case and did not participate.
No. 16-0731/AR. U.S.
v. Austin L. Hendrix. CCA
20140476.
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 on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED A DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS RELATED TO THE
IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT DURING A VOICE LINEUP.
II. WHETHER ACCEPTANCE
OF APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE
MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.
III.
WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING
DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
IV.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
V.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION
IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AN EXPERT CONSULTANT, EP, IN THE FIELD
OF AUDIO FORENSIC SCIENCE AND VOICE IDENTIFICATION.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I and Issue V only.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday,
December 8, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0062/AR. U.S. v. Ricky X. Diamon. CCA
20150358.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 17-0050/AR. U.S.
v. Donnell M. Spriggs. CCA
20150077. 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
on the following issue:
WHETHER
JUDGE JAMES W. HERRING AND JUDGE LARSS G. CELTNIEKS, JUDGES ON THE COURT OF
MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE ARMY
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE
ASSIGNED TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHETHER THEIR SERVICE ON BOTH
COURTS VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN THEIR NEWLY ATTAINED STATUS AS A
SUPERIOR OFFICERS.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0056/AR. U.S.
v. Jodi R. Coker. CCA
20160202. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS
CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGE CELTNIEKS
AND JUDGE BURTON.
II. WHETHER, AS
APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DID NOT MEET THE
UCMJ DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0064/AR. U.S.
v. Nathan A. Kelley. CCA
20140701. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A
CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE HERRING.
II.
WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ
DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0066/AR. U.S.
v. Marcelino Trejo. CCA
20160479. 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
on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS A
CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGES CELTNIEKS AND BURTON.
II. WHETHER, AS
APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES CELTNIEKS AND BURTON DID NOT MEET THE UCMJ
DEFINITION OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGE.
III.
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF INFERIOR OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS TO A SINGLE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ITSELF VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday,
December 7, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0117/AR. U.S. v. Benjamin R. Etter. CCA 20150422.
No. 17-0118/AR. U.S. v. Tyrone E. Stanley. CCA
20150772.
No. 17-0119/AR. U.S. v. Jhon C. Jean-Louis. CCA
20150739.
Miscellaneous Docket - Summary
Dispositions
No. 17-0069/AR. In re Robert B. Bergdahl, Petitioner.
On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature
of writ of mandamus and Petitioner's motion to file an order from the United
States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, add an issue and to construe the
petition as a writ-appeal and motion to file an order from the United States
Army Court of Criminal Appeals on suggestion for consideration en banc, it is
ordered that said motion to file an order from the United States Army
Court of Criminal Appeals, add an issue and to construe the petition as a
writ-appeal is hereby denied, that said petition for extraordinary relief is
hereby denied, and that said motion to file an order from the United States
Army Court of Criminal Appeals on suggestion for consideration en banc is
hereby denied as moot.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 16-0658/AR. U.S. v. Tyler F. Ho. CCA 20140068. Appellee's motion to
file a supplemental joint appendix and motion to substitute appendix table of
contents are hereby granted.
No. 16-0727/AF. U.S. v. James W. Richards
IV. CCA 38346. On consideration of Appellant's
motion to extend time to file matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon,
12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and motion to file an appendix pursuant to Grostefon
matters, it is ordered that said motions are hereby denied.
No. 17-0003/AR. U.S. v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA
20140939. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief granted to
January 9, 2017.
No. 17-0114/AF. U.S. v. Keoni A.
Chavarria. CCA S32355. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 27, 2016.
Hearings
No. 16-0546/AF. U.S. v. Rodney B. Boyce.
CCA 38673.
No. 16-0651/AF. U.S. v. Nicole A. Dalmazzi. CCA 38808.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Tuesday,
December 6, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0114/AF. U.S. v. Keoni A. Chavarria. CCA S32355.
No. 17-0115/MC. U.S. v. Mark Tamburello. CCA 201600109.
No. 17-0116/AR. U.S. v. Aarron
D. Buckner.
CCA
20150323.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0024/AR. U.S. v. Joshua A. Tankersley. CCA 20140074.
Hearings
No. 16-0424/MC. U.S. v. Mark J. Rosario. CCA 201500251.
No. 16-0555/AR. U.S. v. Jason M. Commisso. CCA 20140205.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Monday,
December 5, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0031/AR. U.S. v. Francisco I. Narewski. CCA
20140080.
No. 17-0058/AR. U.S. v. Cody D. Young. CCA
20150729.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 17-0035/AR. U.S.
v. Jeffry A. Feliciano, Jr. CCA 20140766. 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 on the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN
HE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL ON THE DEFENSE OF VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT, AND IF
SO, WHETHER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE
INSTRUCTED THE PANEL THAT APPELLANT'S MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT MUST BE
BOTH HONEST AND REASONABLE, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Briefs
will be filed under Rule 25.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 17-0109/AR. U.S. v. Charles Bonilla. CCA
20131084. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to
the petition for grant of review granted to December 20, 2016.
No. 17-0111/AR. U.S. v. Francisco Galvan. CCA
20150574. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to
the petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2016.
No. 17-0112/AR. U.S. v. Jason R. Crews. CCA
20130766. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to
the petition for grant of review granted to December 16, 2016.
No. 17-0113/AR. U.S. v. Antonio G. Salazar. CCA
20150611. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to
the petition for grant of review granted to December 22, 2016.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Friday,
December 2, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0111/AR. U.S. v. Francisco Galvan. CCA 20150574.
No. 17-0112/AR. U.S. v. Jason R. Crews. CCA 20130766.
No. 17-0113/AR. U.S. v. Antonio G. Salazar. CCA 20150611.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0051/AR. U.S. v. Joselito
Arroyo, Jr. CCA 20150362.
No. 17-0052/AF. U.S. v. Benjamin J. Moore.
CCA 38773.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday,
December 1, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0110/AR. U.S. v. Manuel Rios. CCA
20140971.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0025/MC. U.S. v. Lucas Eastman. CCA
201600071.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 16-0711/AF. U.S. v. Michael J.D.
Briggs. CCA 38730. On
consideration of the issue raised by the Appellant on October 31, 2016, in the
separate appendix pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.
1982), it is ordered that the petition for grant of review of the
above-referenced Grostefon issue is hereby denied. The Court will
consider the case only on the issues granted review on October 19, 2016.
Home Page |
Opinions & Digest
| Daily
Journal | Scheduled
Hearings | Search
Site