UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday,
November 30, 2016
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No. 17-0109/AR. U.S. v. Charles Bonilla. CCA 20131084.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No. 17-0005/AR. U.S. v. Donavon A. Scott. CCA 20150127.
Orders Granting Petition for Review
No. 16-0641/AR. U.S.
v. Ian T. Miller. CCA 20150170. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of
the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the pleadings,
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.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE 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.
No. 17-0010/MC. U.S.
v. Alfredo Solis. CCA 201500249. 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 issue:
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.
No
briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0040/AR. U.S.
v. Keith D. Land. CCA 20160220. 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
COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE
HERRING.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW, 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. 17-0065/AR. U.S.
v. Cassandra M. Riley. CCA 20150687. 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 JUDGES
BURTON AND CELTNIEKS.
II. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE 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
Tuesday, November 29,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No. 16-0706/AR. U.S.
v. Travis L. Gallegos. CCA 20130926.
No. 16-0744/AR. U.S.
v. Edmourd P. Touchette. CCA 20150439.
No. 16-0762/AR. U.S.
v. Tommie E. Crumedy. CCA 20140128.
No.
17-0036/AF. U.S. v. Joseph L. Camacho, Jr. CCA
S32324.
No.
17-0045/AF. U.S. v. Dane A. Naro. CCA
S32305.
No.
17-0046/AF. U.S. v. James M. Sauter, Jr. CCA 38772.
Petitions for Grant
of Review - Summary Dispositions
No. 16-0696/AR. U.S.
v. William G. Inman. CCA 20150042. 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 assigned issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF BECAUSE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY ACTED AS
COUNSEL IN APPELLANT'S CASE, AND BECAUSE HE EXPRESSED AN OPINION CONCERNING THE
GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF APPELLANT WHEN SERVING AS CHIEF OF MILITARY
JUSTICE.
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 of the granted issue. Under Article 66(c), Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2012), the Court of
Criminal Appeals shall review the issue in light of Appellant's exhibits
submitted to and admitted by this Court and any other relevant matters.
See United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236
(C.A.A.F. 1997). If the court determines that a factfinding hearing is
necessary, 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 complete its Article 66(c), UCMJ, review.
Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2012), shall
apply.
Miscellaneous Docket
- Summary Dispositions
No. 17-0053/AR.
Jeffrey R. Kuntz, Appellant v. United States, Appellee. CCA 20160577. On consideration of
the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said writ-appeal petition is hereby
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No.
16-0616/AF. U.S. v. Kelvin L. O'Shaughnessy. CCA
38732. 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. CMCR JUDGE
MITCHELL WAS NOT STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE AIR FORCE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS.
II. EVEN IF CMCR
JUDGE MITCHELL WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE AIR FORCE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, 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.
16-0675/AF. U.S. v. Brandi D. Medeiros. CCA
S32289. 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF
MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW JUDGE, MARTIN T. MITCHELL, WAS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED
TO SIT AS ONE OF THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUDGES ON THE PANEL
THAT DECIDED APPELLANT'S CASE.
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 VIOLATED THE APPOINTMENTS
CLAUSE GIVEN HIS STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 16-0716/AR. U.S.
v. Manuel Ortiz III. CCA 20150267. 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 WRONGLY
APPLIED MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 414 TO CHARGED MISCONDUCT, THEREBY LOWERING
THE GOVERNMENT'S BURDEN OF PROOF AND VIOLATING APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.
II.
WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF
APPOINTMENT AS A CMCR JUDGE TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF JUDGE CELTNIEKS.
III. WHETHER, AS AN
APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS 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.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 16-0749/AR. U.S.
v. Richard S. Carroll. CCA 20150049. 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 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.
Interlocutory
Orders
No. 16-0586/MC. U.S.
v. Nhubu C. Chikaka. CCA 201400251. Appellant's motion to supplement the petition
for grant of review is granted.*
No. 17-0107/AR. U.S.
v. Brandon D. Blake. CCA 20140685. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 19,
2016.
No. 17-0108/MC. U.S.
v. Jesus I. Gallardo. CCA 201500199. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 19,
2016.
Petitions for New
Trial Denied
No. 17-0006/AR. U.S.
v. Travis L. Gallegos. CCA 20130926.
_______________________________
* Judge Ryan did not
participate.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Monday, November 28,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0105/AR. U.S.
v. Anthony v. Santucci. CCA
20140216.
No. 17-0106/AR. U.S.
v. James D. Bragg, Jr. CCA
20150017.
No. 17-0107/AR. U.S.
v. Brandon D. Blake. CCA
20140685.
No. 17-0108/MC. U.S.
v. Jesus I. Gallardo. CCA
201500199.
Interlocutory
Orders
No. 17-0072/AR. U.S.
v. O'Jay R. Woods, Jr. CCA
20150016. Appellant's motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review
granted to December 15, 2016.
No.
17-0101/NA. U.S. v. Mark J. Winiecki. CCA
201600031. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to
the petition for grant of review granted to December 13,
2016.
No. 17-0102/AR. U.S.
v. Fernando P. Cabrera. CCA
20150035. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted to December 13,
2016.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday, November
23, 2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0100/MC. U.S.
v. Blake D. Evans. CCA
201600085.
No.
17-0101/NA. U.S. v. Mark J. Winiecki. CCA
201600031.
No. 17-0102/AR. U.S.
v. Fernando P. Cabrera. CCA
20150035.
No. 17-0103/MC. U.S.
v. Anthony D. Delagarza. CCA
20160081.
No. 17-0104/MC. U.S.
v. Tyler W. Hartmann. CCA
20160091.
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No.
17-0013/AF. U.S. v. Alex R. Goss. CCA
38805.
Miscellaneous Docket
- Filings
No.
17-0099/AR. In
Re Timothy B. Hennis, Petitioner. Notice is
hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of
mandamus or other appropriate relief was filed under Rule 27(a) on this
date.
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No. 16-0424/MC. U.S.
v. Mark J. Rosario. CCA
201500251. On further
consideration of the record and the pleadings, it is ordered that said petition
is hereby granted on the following issue:
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.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25, and oral argument will not be heard on this issue at the
December 6, 2016, hearing.
No.
16-0748/NA. U.S. v. David W. Neiman. CCA
201500119. 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 issue:
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."
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0003/AR. U.S.
v. Christopher B. Hukill. CCA
20140939. 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, IN A COURT-MARTIAL TRIED BY
MILITARY JUDGE ALONE, THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY GRANTING THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO USE THE CHARGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT FOR MILITARY RULE OF
EVIDENCE 413 PURPOSES TO PROVE PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE CHARGED SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT.
II. WHETHER JUDGE
PAULETTE V. BURTON 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
OFFICER.
Briefs will be filed
under Rule 25 on Issue I only.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Tuesday, November 22,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0094/AR. U.S.
v. Jeffrey W. Thompson, Jr. CCA 20160169.
No. 17-0095/AR. U.S.
v. Marcus V. Davis. CCA 20150100.
No. 17-0096/AR. U.S.
v. Jonathan Guzman. CCA 20140465.
No.
17-0097/CG. U.S. v. Johannes P. Boerlage. CCA
1423.
Miscellaneous Docket
- Filings
No.
17-0098/AF. Yogendra Rambharose,
Petitioner v. United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondent.
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.
16-0475/AF. U.S. v. Nathan G. Wilson-Crow. CCA
38706. On consideration of Appellant's motion for leave to file an
additional supplement to the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that
said motion is hereby granted. Appellee may file an answer to the additional
supplement to the petition for grant of review on or before December 12,
2016.
No. 16-0487/AR. U.S.
v. Mario I. Lopez. CCA 20140973. Appellant's motion to extend time to file a
reply brief granted to November 29, 2016.
No. 16-0658/AR. U.S.
v. Tyler F. Ho. CCA 20140068. Appellant's motion
to extend time to file a brief granted to December 2,
2016.
No.
16-0711/AF. U.S. v. Michael J.D. Briggs. CCA
38730. On consideration of Appellant's motion to file a separate appendix
pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), it is
ordered that said motion is hereby granted.
No. 17-0006/AR. U.S.
v. Travis L. Gallegos. CCA 20130926. On consideration of Appellee's motion to attach
Government Appellate Exhibits 1-4, it is ordered that said motion is hereby
granted.
No. 17-0057/AR. U.S.
v. Timothy L. Lawrence. CCA 20150359. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 12,
2016.
No. 17-0086/AF. U.S. v. Patrick Carter.
CCA 38708. On consideration of
Appellee/Cross-Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted
to December 8, 2016.
No. 17-0090/AR. U.S.
v. Ronnie T. Williams. CCA 20150302. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to December 8,
2016.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Monday, November 21,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0088/MC. U.S.
v. Willie B. Paris, Jr. CCA
201600044.
No. 17-0089/AR. U.S.
v. Joshua T. Blazer. CCA
20150135.
No. 17-0090/AR. U.S.
v. Ronnie T. Williams. CCA
20150302.
No. 17-0091/AR. U.S.
v. Stefan S. Hughes. CCA
20150022.
No. 17-0092/AR. U.S.
v. Joseph A. Warren. CCA
20150602.
No. 17-0093/AR. U.S.
v. Michael B. O'Connor. CCA
20130853.
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No.
17-0030/AF. U.S. v. Kyle A. Drake. CCA
S32358.
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No. 16-0719/AR. U.S.
v. John G. Birdsong. CCA
20140887. 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. 16-0735/AR. U.S.
v. Rhandall S. Lavasseur,
Jr. CCA 20150475. 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. 17-0047/AR. U.S.
v. Adrian T. Douglas. CCA
20140449. 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 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 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.
Interlocutory
Orders
No.
16-0651/AF. U.S. v. Nicole A. Dalmazzi. CCA
38808. On further
consideration of the record of trial, as supplemented following the order of the
Court dated October 28, 2016, it is ordered that the parties brief the following
specified issue:
WHETHER THE ISSUES
GRANTED FOR REVIEW ARE MOOT WHERE THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT: MARTIN T. MITCHELL
TOOK AN OATH PURPORTING TO INSTALL HIM AS A JUDGE OF THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY
COMMISSION REVIEW (CMCR) ON MAY 2, 2016; THE AIR FORCE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) ISSUED AN OPINION IN
THE UNDERLYING CASE WITH JUDGE MITCHELL PARTICIPATING IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN
AFCCA JUDGE ON MAY 12, 2016; AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT
APPOINT MITCHELL TO THE CMCR UNTIL MAY 25,
2016.
The parties will
brief this issue contemporaneously, and file their briefs on or before December
1, 2016. It is further ordered that
the Court will hear oral argument only on the specified issue at the hearing
scheduled for December 7, 2016, and that the order allotting amicus curiae 10 minutes to present oral
argument is hereby rescinded.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Friday, November 18,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No.
17-0085/AF. U.S. v. Robert A. Carrubba. CCA
S32341.
No.
17-0086/AF. U.S. v. Patrick Carter. CCA
38708.
No. 17-0087/AR. U.S.
v. Jameson T. Hazelbower. CCA
20150335.
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No. 17-0019/AR. U.S.
v. Luavasa F. Tauala, Jr.
CCA 20140658.
No. 17-0022/AR. U.S.
v. Joseph A. Warren. CCA
20150104.
No. 17-0023/AR. U.S.
v. Sammy G. Gulley. CCA
20160196.
Interlocutory
Orders
No.
17-0037/AF. U.S. v. Cory D. Phillips. CCA 38771. Appellant's motion
for leave to file a corrected supplement to the petition for grant of review
granted.
No. 17-0074/AR. U.S.
v. Jose L. Nataren. CCA
20130413. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted to November 30, 2016.
No. 17-0078/AR. U.S.
v. Garnard W. Burnside III. CCA
20130193. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted to December 7, 2016.
No. 17-0083/AR. U.S.
v. Thomas L. Humburd, Jr. CCA 20150214. Appellant's motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review
granted to December 5, 2016.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday, November
17, 2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No.
17-0080/CG. U.S. v. Daniel G. Eyer. CCA
1417.
No. 17-0081/AR. U.S.
v. Eric A. Leroy. CCA
20160294.
No. 17-0082/AR. U.S.
v. Walter L. Graham, Jr. CCA
20150364.
No. 17-0083/AR. U.S.
v. Thomas L. Humburd, Jr. CCA 20150214.
No. 17-0084/AR. U.S.
v. James N. Costigan. CCA
20150052.
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No. 17-0032/AR. U.S.
v. Sean M. Ahern. CCA
20130822. 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 THE LOWER
COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST USING AN ADMISSION BY
SILENCE PROVIDED BY MIL. R. EVID. 304(a)(2) IS TRIGGERED ONLY
"WHEN THE ACCUSED IS AWARE OF" AN INVESTIGATION CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE
OF THE RULE.
Briefs will be filed
under Rule 25.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday, November
16, 2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0078/AR. U.S.
v. Garnard W. Burnside III. CCA 20130193.
Certificates for
Review Filed
No.
17-0079/AF. United States,
Appellant v. Patrick Carter, Appellee. CCA
38708. 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 on this date on the
following issue:
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (AFCCA) ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE CONVENING AUTHORITY
EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF AFCCA'S REMAND WHEN HE REFERRED APPELLANT'S CASE TO AN
"OTHER" TRIAL UNDER R.C.M. 1107(e)(2) FOLLOWING AFCCA'S
ORIGINAL REMAND DECISION.
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No. 16-0753/AR. U.S.
v. Taylor A. Layton. CCA 20150260. 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 JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE
BURTON.
II.
WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES
OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING AND JUDGE BURTON DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0014/AR. U.S.
v. Stephen C. Warren. CCA 20140510. 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 JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON.
II.
WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES
OF THE CMCR, JUDGE CELTNIEKS AND JUDGE BURTON DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0016/AR. U.S.
v. Christopher L. Cottner. CCA 20150733. 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. 17-0017/AR. U.S.
v. Jasmine S. Hercules. CCA 20150197. 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. 17-0021/AR. U.S.
v. Alvin S. Banks. CCA 20130948. 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY
COMMISSION REVIEW JUDGE, JAMES W. HERRING, JR., IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT
AS ONE OF THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUDGES ON THE PANEL THAT DECIDED
APPELLANT'S CASE.
II. WHETHER JUDGE
JAMES W. HERRING, JR.'S SERVICE ON BOTH THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS
CLAUSE GIVEN HIS STATUS AS A SUPERIOR OFFICER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0038/AR. U.S.
v. Christopher B. Smith. CCA 20140353. 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 DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
Hearings
No. 16-0407/AR. U.S.
v. Justin P. Swift. CCA 20100196.
No. 16-0423/AR. U.S.
v. Joseph R. Haverty. CCA 20130559.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Tuesday, November 15,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No.
17-0076/AF. U.S. v. Jerimia D. Wood. CCA
S32346.
No. 17-0077/AR. U.S.
v. Salvador Jimenez-Victoria. CCA
20140733.
Hearings
No. 16-0391/MC. U.S.
v. Emmanuel Q. Bartee. CCA
201500037.
No.
16-0418/NA. U.S. v. Jeffrey D. Sager. CCA
201400356.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Monday, November 14,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No.
17-0075/AF. U.S. v. James B. Richey. CCA
S32362.
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No. 16-0752/AR. U.S.
v. Christopher B. Hines. CCA
20131049.
No. 17-0011/AR. U.S.
v. Benjamin J. Durham. CCA
20150377.
No. 17-0012/AR. U.S.
v. Thomas M. Hanna. CCA
20140934.
No.
17-0015/AF. U.S. v. Dustin B. Wood. CCA
38792.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday, November
10, 2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0072/AR. U.S.
v. O'Jay R. Woods, Jr. CCA
20150016.
No. 17-0073/AR. U.S.
v. William C. Millay. CCA
20130341.
No. 17-0074/AR. U.S.
v. Jose L. Nataren. CCA
20130413.
Petitions for
Reconsideration Granted
No.
16-0724/AF. U.S. v. Donald R.B. Simmons. CCA 38788. On consideration of
Appellant's petition for reconsideration of this Court's Order issued October
20, 2016, it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration is hereby
granted, that the Order of October 20, 2016, denying the petition for grant of
review is hereby vacated, and the petition for grant of review 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 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.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday, November
9, 2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0070/AR. U.S.
v. Kyle W. Miner. CCA
20160268.
No. 17-0071/AR. U.S.
v. Sean D. Thomas. CCA
20150205.
Miscellaneous Docket
- Filings
No.
17-0069/AR. In
Re Robert B. Bergdahl, Petitioner. Notice is
hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of writ of
mandamus was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.
Petitions for New
Trial Filed
No.
17-0068/AF. U.S. v. Andre K. Lewis. CCA
38671.
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No. 17-0027/AR. U.S.
v. Nicholas E. White. CCA 20140945. 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 COMMISISON OF JUDGE HERRING.
II.
WHETHER, AS AN APPOINTED
JUDGE OF THE CMCR, JUDGE HERRING DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
Interlocutory
Orders
No. 16-0487/AR. U.S.
v. Mario I. Lopez. CCA
20140973. Appellant's motion to file a corrected brief is hereby
granted.
No. 16-0641/AR. U.S.
v. Ian T. Miller. CCA
20150170. Appellee's motion to file a 10-day
answer letter out of time is hereby denied.
No.
16-0651/AF. U.S. v. Nicole A. Dalmazzi. CCA 38808.
Appellant's motion to supplement the record and motion for leave to file a reply
to the amicus curiae brief of the
United States Army Appellate Government Division are hereby
granted.
No. 17-0059/AR. U.S.
v. Ethan J. Markley. CCA
20140956. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted to November 28, 2016.
No.
17-0060/NA. U.S. v. Matthew Wilson. CCA 201600194. Appellant's
motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review
granted to November 28, 2016.
No. 17-0061/AR. U.S.
v. Michael E. Paradiso. CCA
20150186. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the
petition for grant of review granted to November 28, 2016.
No.
17-0063/AF. U.S. v. Jerry C. Harrison. CCA 38745. Appellant's motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review
granted to November 28, 2016.
Petitions for
Reconsideration Denied
No. 16-0613/AR. U.S.
v. Bryant K. Marsh. CCA
20120572. Appellant's petition for reconsideration out of time of this
Court's order issued on August 15, 2016 is hereby
denied.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Tuesday, November 8,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0066/AR. U.S.
v. Marcelino Trejo. CCA
20160479.
No. 17-0067/AR. U.S.
v. Anthony K. Bickerstaff. CCA
20160065.
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No. 17-0008/AR. U.S.
v. Matthew R. Strempler. CCA
20150527.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Monday, November 7,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0059/AR. U.S.
v. Ethan J. Markley. CCA
20140956.
No.
17-0060/NA. U.S. v. Matthew Wilson. CCA
201600194.
No. 17-0061/AR. U.S.
v. Michael E. Paradiso. CCA
20150186.
No. 17-0062/AR. U.S.
v. Rick X. Diamon. CCA
20150358.
No.
17-0063/AF. U.S. v. Jerry C. Harrison. CCA
38745.
No. 17-0064/AR. U.S.
v. Nathan A. Kelley. CCA
20140701.
No. 17-0065/AR. U.S.
v. Cassandra M. Riley. CCA
20150687.
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No.
17-0001/AF. U.S. v. Rudy R. Ruiz. CCA
38752.
No.
17-0007/AF. U.S. v. Joe A. Garcia. CCA
38814.
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No. 17-0026/AR. U.S.
v. Joshua R. Luna. CCA
20150365. 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 APPOINTMENTS AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS OF JUDGES HERRING AND BURTON.
II. WHETHER, AS
APPOINTED JUDGES OF THE CMCR, JUDGES HERRING AND
BURTON DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Friday, November 4,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0056/AR. U.S.
v. Jodi R. Coker. CCA
20160202.
No. 17-0057/AR. U.S.
v. Timothy L. Lawrence. CCA
20150359.
No. 17-0058/AR. U.S.
v. Cody D. Young. CCA
20150729.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Thursday, November 3,
2016
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No.
16-0214/NA. U.S. v. Michael Z. Pabelona. CCA
201400244. On further
consideration of the petition for grant of review and the pleadings, it is
ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following additional
issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY
JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS, "IF BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED 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.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Wednesday, November
2, 2016
Orders Granting
Petition for Review
No.
16-0669/NA. U.S. v. Mark A. Berger. CCA 201500024. 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 issue:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED
HIS DISCRETION BY GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO USE EVIDENCE OF CHARGED
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT UNDER MRE 413 TO SHOW PROPENSITY TO COMMIT OTHER CHARGED
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. SEE UNITED STATES v. HILLS, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F.
2016).
II.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE
ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS, "IF BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE
EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED 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.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
Hearings
No.
16-0455/AF. U.S. v. Trentlee D. McClour. CCA
38704.
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
Tuesday, November 1,
2016
Petitions for Grant
of Review Filed
No. 17-0054/AR. U.S.
v. Isaac L. Haywood. CCA 20150146.
No. 17-0055/AR. U.S.
v. Mitchell L. Brantley. CCA 20150199.
Petitions for Grant
of Review Denied
No. 16-0760/AR. U.S.
v. Shareef S. Abdullah. CCA 20150079.
No. 16-0763/AR. U.S.
v. Zachariah P. Morrison. CCA 20160138.
Miscellaneous Docket
- Filings
No. 17-0053/AR.
Jeffrey R. Kuntz, Appellant v. United States, Appellee. CCA 20160577. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal
petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on
this date.
Miscellaneous Docket
- Summary Dispositions
No.
17-0029/AF. Clarence Anderson
III, 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. 16-0754/AR. U.S.
v. Arthur Martin, Jr. CCA 20130207. 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 APPOINTMENTS
AS CMCR JUDGES TERMINATED THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS OF JUDGES HERRING AND CELTNIEKS.
II.
WHETHER, AS APPOINTED JUDGES
OF THE CMCR, JUDGES HERRING AND CELTNIEKS DO 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 16-0758/AR. U.S.
v. Jesse M. Taylor. CCA 20150158. 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 CMCR JUDGE HERRING IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO SIT ON THE
ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.
II.
WHETHER, EVEN IF CMCR JUDGE HERRING IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSIGNED
TO THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, HIS SERVICE ON BOTH COURTS VIOLATES THE
APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
No. 17-0004/AR. U.S.
v. Jason A. Maestre. CCA 20140549. 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 DOES 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 VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE.
No briefs will be
filed under Rule 25.
Interlocutory
Orders
No. 17-0048/AR. U.S.
v. David J. Dorris. CCA 20140185. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 17,
2016.
No. 17-0049/MC. U.S.
v. Tanner J. Forrester. CCA 201500295. Appellant's motion to extend time to file the
supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 21,
2016.
Hearings
No.
16-0229/AF. U.S. v. Ellwood T. Bowen, III. CCA 38616.
Home Page |
Opinions & Digest
| Daily
Journal | Scheduled
Hearings | Search
Site