YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2016 TERM > FEBRUARY 2017

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

---

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Keanu D. W. Ortiz	No. 16-0671/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Maj Lauren Ann Shure, USAF (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:   Maj Gary M. Osborn, USAF (brief)

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Army Government Appellate Division

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Government Division

Brief of Amicus Curiae & Appendix -- Military Commissions Defense Organization

Case Summary: GCM conviction of viewing child pornography, possession of child pornography, and distribution of child pornography. Granted issues question (1) whether United States Court of Military Commission review Judge, Martin T. Mitchell, is statutorily authorized to sit as one of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals judges on the panel that decided Appellant's case; (2) 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; and (3) 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.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Christopher L. Oliver	No. 16-0484/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Maj Christopher D. James, USAF (brief)
                                      ------------------------------------- (reply brief) Counsel for Appellee:   Maj Meredith L. Steer, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of violating a general regulation, dereliction of duty, adultery, wrongful sexual contact, and consensual sodomy. Granted issue questions whether wrongful sexual contact was a lesser-included offense of abusive sexual contact.

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

---

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Christopher B. Hukill	No.17-0003/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant: Capt Katherine L. DePaul, JA, USA (brief)    
                                        ----------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Anne C. Hsieh, JA, USA (brief)    

Case Summary: GCM conviction of rape and abusive sexual contact. Granted issues question (1) 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; and (2) 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.

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument. Oral argument will be on Issue I only.

Followed by:

United States v.	Jeffry A. Feliciano, Jr.	No. 17-0035/AR
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio)

Counsel for Appellant:  Capt Michael A. Gold, JA, USA (brief)
                                        -------------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:   Maj Anne C. Hsieh, JA, USA (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction of attempted aggravated sexual assault, disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer, disobeying a noncommissioned officer, disorderly conduct, and wrongful use of marijuana. Granted issues question (1) 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; (2) 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.

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