YOU ARE HERE: HOME > HEARING CALENDAR > OCTOBER 2025 TERM > FEBRUARY 2026

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

---

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Eric C. Babbitt	No. 25-0220/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: LT Jesse B. Neumann, JAGC, USN (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  MAJ Mary Claire Finnen, USMC

Case Summary: GCM conviction for attempted sexual abuse of a child under 12 by indecent exposure on divers occasions; sexual abuse of a child under 16 by indecent conduct, and assault and battery on a child under 16. Granted issues are: (1) whether the Commonwealth of Virginia's request to the Navy to keep Appellant confined in Virginia so that the Commonwealth could receive custody of Appellant in order to try him for pending criminal charges constituted a detainer, thus triggering the Navy's required compliance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act; (2) whether the lower court erred by relying on an irrelevant Capias warrant that is not in the record to conclude the Navy did not have a duty to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act; (3) whether the sentence interruption provision of Article 14, UCMJ, can be invoked after a Detainer has been filed; and (4) if the Navy did not comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, what remedy is the Court authorized to provide Appellant?

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Anderson A. Ixcolgonzalez	No. 25-0243/MC
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: MAJ Mary Claire Finnen, USMC (brief)
                                                 ------------------------- (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LT Meggie C. Kane-Cruz, JAGC, USN (brief)

Case Summary: The Judge Advocate General of the Navy filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a)(2), UCMJ, asking the Court to address: (1) did the military judge err suppressing digital device evidence because authorization did not use "as much specificity as the government's knowledge and circumstances" allowed – when Richards requires only enough to prevent a search clearly outside the scope of the crime being investigated, and the authorization specified child pornography crimes and evidence of those crimes?; (2) did the military judge and lower court err finding that good faith did not apply because the authorization did not specify locations to be searched inside the digital devices, basing that finding on the Fourth Amendment, where "computer files may be manipulated to hide their true contents," and where the rule at the time of the search was that the authorization was sufficient and the affidavit was incorporated?; (3) did the military judge err holding that the affidavit was not incorporated where the authorization twice referenced the attached affidavit signed by the commanding officer, and where Mil. R. Evid. 315 only requires statements in support of probable cause to be "communicated," but does not require words of incorporation?; and (4) did the military judge abuse his discretion when he found that law enforcement conduct was sufficiently culpable such that the exclusionary rule would meaningfully deter it?

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

---

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Ann R. Marin Perez	No. 25-0238/AF
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Samantha M. Castanien, USAF (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Capt Donnell D. Wright, USAF

Case Summary: GCM conviction for larceny. Granted issue is whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it affirmed a conviction through exceptions and substitutions after finding that "the military judge erred in accepting Appellant's plea to the specification as drafted."

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Brandon B. Hunt	No. 25-0257/AF
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Col G. Matt Osborn, USAF (brief) (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Jordan L. Grande, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for sexual assault. The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force filed a certificate for review of Appellee's case pursuant to Art. 67(a)(2), UCMJ, asking the Court to address; (1) can a CCA find a conviction factually insufficient under Article 66, UCMJ, based on a matter not raised as a "deficiency in proof" by the Appellant?; and (2) did the AFCCA err by finding Appellee's conviction factually insufficient based on mistake of fact as to consent, when Appellee did not identify or argue mistake of fact as to consent as a deficiency in proof in his appeal?

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