UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Thursday, August 29,
2024
`
Order Granting Petition for Review
No.
24-0172/AR. U.S. v. Rodrigo L. Urieta. CCA 20220432. 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 granted on the
following issue:
WHETHER
THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE DEFENSE CHALLENGE FOR
CAUSE AGAINST A MEMBER WHO BELIEVED A SOLDIER WHO HIRED A CIVILIAN DEFENSE
COUNSEL DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIS DEFENSE.
Appellant
will file a brief on or before September 30, 2024, Appellee will file an answer
brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and
Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of
Appellee's answer brief.
Interlocutory Orders
No.
24-0144/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. On consideration of the
motion filed by the Intervenor E.B. to reject Appellant's motion to view and
copy sealed material, it is ordered that the motion is denied without prejudice
to filing a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief.
No.
24-0144/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. On consideration of
Appellant's motions to view and copy sealed material, to file a brief under
seal and to file the joint appendix under seal, it is ordered that the motions
are granted.
No.
24-0156/AR. U.S. v. Ross E. Downum. CCA 20220575. Appellee's motion to
reschedule oral argument is denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Wednesday, August 28,
2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0222/AR. U.S. v. Leonardo R. Garcia. CCA 20230508.
Interlocutory Order
No.
24-0221/AF. U.S. v. Jakalien J. Cook. CCA 40333. Appellant's motion to extend
time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is granted to
September 17, 2024.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Tuesday, August 27,
2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0221/AF. U.S. v. Jakalien J. Cook. CCA 40333.
Interlocutory Orders
No. 24-0156/AR. United
States, Appellant v. Ross E. Downum, Appellee. CCA 20220575. On consideration
of Appellant's motion to amend its certificate for review, Appellant's motion
to supplement the record, and Appellee's motion for appellate discovery, the
Court notes the following:
1.
Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2)
(2018), directs this Court to review the record in "all cases reviewed by a
Court of Criminal Appeals which the Judge Advocate General, after
appropriate notification to the other Judge Advocates General and the Staff
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, orders sent to the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review." (Emphasis added.) Rule for
Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1204(a)(2) implements Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, with the
same requirement of "appropriate notification."
2.
On April 30, 2024, according to representations that neither party disputes,
the Chief of the Government Appellate Division, U.S. Army, sent a notice to the
chiefs of the government appellate divisions of the other services informing
them of the Army Judge Advocate General's intent to certify three issues to
this Court pursuant to Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ.
3.
On May 13, 2024, the Army Judge Advocate General signed a certificate for
review in this Court requesting review of these issues. The certificate for
review included the following statement: "Pursuant to Article 67(a)(2) the
other Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of
the Marine Corps were notified of my consideration to certify the issues."
4.
On May 15, 2024, again according to representations that neither party
contests, Appellant learned that the service leadership of two services had not
acquired actual knowledge of the certified issues as of May 13, 2024, the date
on which the Army Judge Advocate General had signed the certificate for review.
All the Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant
of the Marine Corps had been directly notified, and thus acquired actual
knowledge, of the certified issues by May 20, 2024.
5.
On May 22, 2024, Appellant moved to file an amended certificate for review. The
text of the proffered amended certificate for review is identical to the
certificate for review filed on May 13, 2024, but indicates that it was signed
by the Judge Advocate General of the Army on May 20, 2024.
6.
On May 28, 2024, Appellee filed an answer opposing Appellant's motion to amend
the certificate for review and proposed further inquiry into whether the
prerequisites for jurisdiction under Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, had been met. On
May 31, 2024, Appellant filed a reply to this answer in which it asserted that
the prerequisites for jurisdiction had been met.
7.
On June 14, 2024, this Court ordered supplemental briefing on several specified
issues, including: "Are the requirements of 'appropriate notification' in
Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2)
(2018) and Rule for Courts-Martial 1204(a)(2), satisfied by routing
notification to the Government Appellate Division Chief of each respective
service?"
8.
Appellant argued in its supplemental brief that it had provided appropriate
notification, asserting that sending notice through appropriate personnel
satisfies the requirement of notifying the Judge Advocates General of the other
services and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Appellee argued in his supplemental brief that notice to the chiefs of the
government appellate divisions of the other services was not "appropriate
notice" because these chiefs "are not part of the offices of the judge
advocates general." Appellee therefore requested this Court to dismiss the
appeal.
Having
received the supplemental briefing and considered these procedural steps, this
Court reaches the following conclusions:
Appellee
has not filed a separate motion to dismiss the certificate for review for lack
of jurisdiction but has merely asked for that remedy in his pleadings.
Ordinarily, motions must be filed separately before this Court and cannot be
incorporated into other pleadings. C.A.A.F. R. 30(d). This Court, however, has
an independent duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction even if the issue
is not properly raised by the parties. M.W. v. United States, 83 M.J.
361, 363 (C.A.A.F. 2023) (citing Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,
514 (2006)). The Court therefore considers Appellee's request to dismiss the
appeal in conjunction with our review of Appellant's motion to amend.
Article
67(a)(2), UCMJ, and R.C.M. 1204(a)(2) require a Judge Advocate General seeking
to certify issues to this Court to provide "appropriate notification to" the
senior leaders of the other services. The Court cannot equate "notification to"
with "actual knowledge of" because these are well-recognized as distinct legal
concepts. Compare Notification, Black's Law Dictionary
1280 (11th ed. 2019), with Knowledge, id. at 1043. In
addition, if a requirement of actual knowledge of the certified issues were
required, the qualifier "appropriate" would be rendered superfluous. The Court
therefore interprets the phrase "appropriate notification to" simply to mean
that the text of the proposed certified issues must be sent to addresses or
through personnel that are appropriate for contacting the senior leaders of
each of the other services.
In
this case, Appellee argues that the notices were not sent to appropriate
addresses or personnel when they were sent to the chiefs of the government
appellate divisions of the other services. Appellee, however, has cited no
statute, rule, or regulation requiring notification to be sent to a different
address. Appellee has also cited nothing to indicate that the Judge Advocates
General of the other services or the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of
the Marine Corps desired the Army Judge Advocate General to send notice to a
different location. Accordingly, the Court has no basis for concluding that the
notification in this case was not appropriate. The Court therefore rejects
Appellee's request that the Court dismiss the certificate for review. The Court
further has no need to address the other specified issues. And because the
initial certificate for review correctly stated that appropriate notification
had been sent, the Court also perceives no need for amending the certificate
for review. Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellee's request to dismiss the
appeal is denied, that Appellant's motion to file an amended certificate for
review is denied, and Appellant's motion to supplement the record and
Appellee's motion for appellate discovery are denied as moot.
No.
24-0207/AR. U.S. v. Laquinton T. Leslie. CCA 20220205. Appellant's second
motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of
review is granted to September 9, 2024.
No.
24-0217/AR. U.S. v. Alex J. Secord. CCA 20210667. Appellant's motion to extend
time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is granted to
September 16, 2024.
No.
24-0218/AR. U.S. v. Anthony J. Longres. CCA 20220473. Appellant's motion to
extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is
granted to September 16, 2024.
No.
24-0220/AR. U.S. v. Laavon D. Owens. CCA 20220280. Appellant's motion to extend
time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is granted to
September 16, 2024.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Monday, August 26, 2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0220/AR. U.S. v. Laavon D. Owens. CCA 20220280.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Friday, August 23, 2024
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0217/AR. U.S. v. Alex J. Secord. CCA 20210667.
No.
24-0218/AR. U.S. v. Anthony J. Longres. CCA 20220473.
No.
24-0219/AF. U.S. v. Brian W. Gubicza. CCA 40464.
Interlocutory Orders
No.
24-0089/AF. U.S. v. Nikolas S. Casillas. CCA 40302. Appellant's motion to
extend time to file a reply brief is granted to
September 16, 2024.
No.
24-0210/AR. U.S. v. Badders. CCA 20200538. Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of
review is granted to September 9, 2024.
No.
24-0216/AR. U.S. v. Brett D. Crawford. CCA 20230107. Appellant's motion to
extend time to file the supplement to the petition for
grant of review is granted to September 18, 2024.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Tuesday, August 20,
2024
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No.
24-0142/AF. U.S. v. Ervin D. McCoy. CCA 40119.
No.
24-0157/AR. U.S. v. Andre X. Tate. CCA 20200590.
No.
24-0176/AR. U.S. v. Noe A. RodriguezMorones. CCA 20230274.
No.
24-0193/NA. U.S. v. Dean Avellaneda. CCA 202300116.
No.
24-0201/AR. U.S. v. Justin Washington. CCA 20230198.
No.
24-0203/AR. U.S. v. Jaqui L. Jones. CCA 20230445.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Monday, August 19, 2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0216/AR. U.S. v. Brett D. Crawford. CCA 20230107.
Mandate Issued
No.
23-0163/AF. U.S. v. Matthew P. Leipart. CCA 39711.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Friday, August 16, 2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0215/AF. U.S. v. Branden C. Haynes. CCA 40306.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Thursday, August 15,
2024
Petition for Grant of Review Denied
No.
24-0173/NA. U.S. v. Kevin C. McNulty. CCA 202300070.
Order Granting Petition for Review
No.
24-0138/MC. U.S. v. Juan I. Campos. CCA 202200246. 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 granted on the following issue:
DID
THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING, OVER
DEFENSE OBJECTION, ALLEGATIONS OF ADDITIONAL MISCONDUCT IN THE UNSWORN VICTIM
IMPACT STATEMENT?
Appellant
will file a brief on or before September 16, 2024; Appellee will file an answer
brief no later than 30 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and
Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 10 days after the filing of
Appellee's answer brief.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Wednesday, August 14,
2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
Interlocutory Order
No.
24-0212/AF. U.S. v. Monica R. Arroyo. CCA 40321. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of
review is granted to September 3, 2024.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Tuesday, August 13,
2024
Interlocutory Order
No.
24-0124/NA & No. 24-0125/NA. United States, Appellee/Cross-Appellant v.
Jeremy W. Harboth, Appellant/Cross-Appellee. CCA 202200157.
On consideration of Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s second motion to extend time to
file a brief, it is ordered that the motion is granted to September 3, 2024.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Monday, August 12, 2024
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0212/AF. U.S. v. Monica R. Arroyo. CCA 40321.
No.
24-0213/AR. U.S. v. Charles R. Green. CCA 20210656.
Mandates Issued
No.
23-0204/MC. U.S. v. Thomas H. Tapp. CCA 202100299.
No.
24-0002/AR. U.S. v. Allan L. Armstrong. CCA 20210644.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Friday, August 9, 2024
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No.
24-0135/AR. U.S. v. Jose A. Tezanosalvarez. CCA
20220484.
No.
24-0199/AR. U.S. v. Andrew K. Masich. CCA 20230352.
Interlocutory Orders
No.
24-0091/AR. U.S. v. Jonathan Marin. CCA 20210375. On consideration of Appellant’s
motion to file petition for reconsideration out of time and Appellant’s
petition for reconsideration, it is ordered that the motion to file petition
for reconsideration out of time is granted and the petition for reconsideration
is denied.
No.
24-0144/NA. U.S. v. Salvador Jacinto. CCA 201800325. Appellant’s motion to
extend time to file a brief is granted to September
18, 2024.
No.
24-0210/AR. U.S. v. Badders. CCA 20200538. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of
review is granted to August 29, 2024.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Thursday, August 8,
2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0211/NA. U.S. v. Christian J. Elizondo. CCA 202300239.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Wednesday, August 7,
2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0210/AR. U.S. v. Badders. CCA 20200538.
Petition for Grant of Review Denied
No.
24-0153/AR. U.S. v. Darren M. Gale. CCA 20230142.
Interlocutory Order
No.
24-0208/AF. U.S. v. Michael A. Valentin-Andino. CCA 40185. Appellant’s motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition
for grant of review is granted to August 27, 2024.
Petitions for Reconsideration Denied
No.
24-0085/AF. U.S. v. Jeremy M. Zier. CCA 21014. Appellant’s petition for
reconsideration of this Court’s order issued July 18, 2024, is denied.
No.
24-0143/AF. U.S. v. Philip C. Knodel. CCA 40018. Appellant’s petition for
reconsideration of this Court’s order issued July 18, 2024, is denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0209/AF. U.S. v. Kaye P. Donley. CCA 40350.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Monday, August 5, 2024
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0208/AF. U.S. v. Michael A. Valentin-Andino. CCA 40185.
Interlocutory Orders
No.
24-0096/AF. U.S. v. Jaquan Q. Greene-Watson. CCA 40293. Appellant's motion to
extend time to file a reply brief is granted to August
15, 2024.
No.
24-0207/AR. U.S. v. Laquinton T. Leslie. CCA 20220205. Appellant's motion to
extend time to file the supplement to the petition for
grant of review is granted to August 26, 2024.
Mandate Issued
No.
23-0250/AF. H.V.Z. v. U.S. & Fewell. CCA 2023-03.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Friday, August 2, 2024
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No.
24-0206/AF. U.S. v. Dennis A. George, Jr. CCA 40397.
No.
24-0207/AR. U.S. v. Laquinton T. Leslie. CCA 20220205.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Thursday, August 1,
2024
Petition for Grant of Review Denied
No.
24-0161/AR. U.S. v. Carlos D. Locke. CCA 20220447.
Mandate Issued
No.
23-0165/MC. U.S. v. Bradley M. Metz. CCA 201900089.
Home
Page | Opinions & Digest
| Daily
Journal | Scheduled Hearings
| Search Site