YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > SEPTEMBER 2013 TERM > OCTOBER 2013

United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces
450 E Street, Northwest Washington D.C. 20442-0001

---

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Robert M. Payne	No. 13-0345/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Nicholas D. Carter, USAF (brief)
                                   ------------------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee: Capt Thomas J. Alford, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of attempted indecent language to a child, attempting to transfer obscene material to a child, attempting to entice a minor, and misuse of a government computer. Granted issue questions whether the military judge improperly instructed the members of the elements for creation of child pornography.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Jordan C. Passut	No. 13-0518/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Matthew T. King, USAF (brief)
Counsel for Appellee: Maj Rhea A. Lagano, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of using oxycodone, making a false official statement, forgery, AWOL, misuse of a government travel card, writing bad checks, and falsely altering a military identification card. Granted issue questions whether a statement made to an AAFES employee for the purpose of cashing a worthless check satisfies the "official" element of a false official statement charge.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Rollan D. Mead	No. 13-0459/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Matthew M. Jones, JA, USA (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Sam Gabremariam, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for drunk driving, wrongfully using amphetamines, and involuntary manslaughter.  Granted issue questions whether the Army Court incorrectly ruled that Pierce credit may be applied against the adjudged sentence where this results in no relief to Appellant and whether the Army Court incorrectly ruled that pay lost as a result of prior reduction under Article 15, UCMJ, need not be restored to Appellant.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Laurence H. Finch	No. 13-0353AF/ 13-5007AF
(Appellee/ Cross-Appellant)	(Appellant/ Cross-Appellee)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Maj Matthew T. King, USAF                          ---------------------------- (brief) (Cross-Appellee brief)
Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Maj Brian C. Mason, USAF                      ----------------------------- (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of receiving child pornography, and distributing child pornography. The granted issue questions where the Article 134 child pornography specifications of which Appellant was convicted did not allege that the images depicted actual minors and where the military judge advised Appellant during the providence inquiry that "there is no requirement that the images in this case include actual images of minors," is the maximum authorized confinement for each specification limited to four months? The certified issue questions if the court finds that the specifications sufficiently alleged that the visual depictions were of actual minors but that the military judge's definitions were inconsistent with the alleged specifications, what is the appropriate remedy, if any, to be given?

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.

---

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

2:30 p.m.:

United States v.	Samuel A. Wicks	No. 13-6004/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Christopher D. James, USAF                                                   -------------------------------- (supplement)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Charles G. Warren, USAF (answer)

Case Summary: General court-martial prosecution for violating lawful general regulations, committing indecent conduct, and impeding an investigation. The military judge granted the defense motion and suppressed the evidence from a cell phone analysis and all derivative evidence. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the military judge's decision to suppress the evidence. Granted issue is whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding law enforcement's repeated warrantless searches of Appellant's Iphone did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.  Project Outreach case to be heard at the University of Arkansas School of Law, 1045 W. Maple Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.