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

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

---

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Zachary J. Askins	No. 26-0002/AR & No. 26-0014/AR
(Appellee/ Cross-Appellant)	(Appellant/ Cross-Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: CPT Eli M. Creighton, JA, USA
       26-0002/AR -- brief
       26-0014/AR -- brief   supplemental brief
Counsel for Appellee:  MAJ Vy T. Nguyen, JA, USA
       26-0002/AR -- brief
       26-0014/AR -- brief   supplemental brief

Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Jim Young and Ann Ching
Brief of Amicus Curiae -- Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law
                                   and National Institute of Military Justice

Case Summary: The Judge Advocate General of the Army filed a certificate for review of Appellant's case asking the Court to address whether the Army Court erred in finding Appellant's separate convictions under Article 128b(1) and Article 128b(5), UCMJ, multiplicious. Granted issues are: (1) whether the Army Court erred when it held that the United States was in a "time of war" from 2014-2017 and the statute of limitations was tolled; and (2) whether Appellant waived or forfeited application of the statute of limitations to his larceny conviction in specification 1 of Charge I. If forfeited, does Appellant meet his burden of proof under plain error review?

NOTE: Counsel for each side will be allotted 30 minutes to present oral argument.

Followed by:

United States v.	Thomas E. Kruse	No. 26-0156/MC
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Theodore H. Massey, III, USMC
                                                 ------------------ (supplement) (reply)
Counsel for Appellee:  LCDR Philip J. Corrigan, JAGC, USN (answer)

Case Summary: Appellant petitioned this Court to grant review of the Court of Criminal Appeals' published decision on the government's Article 62, UCMJ, appeal. Granted issue questions whether the lower court's ruling on the exclusive authority granted to the Special Trial Counsel under Article 24a, UCMJ, runs counter to the statute's plain meaning, the will of Congress, and creates an absurd result.

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

---

Wednesday, May 20, 2026

9:30 a.m.:

United States v.	Anthony D. Grafton	No. 26-0039/NA
(Appellee)	(Appellant)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Kimberly D. Barnes, Esq. (brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  LCDR Phillip J. Corrigan, JAGC, USN (brief)

Case Summary: GCM conviction for sexual assault. Granted issues are: (1) whether the lower court erred when it found the military judge's instructions did not run afoul of this Court's decision in United States v. Mendoza; and (2) whether it was error for the lower court to "reassess" a sentence that was never imposed.

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

Followed by:

United States v.	Nathaniel A. Casillas	No. 26-0096/AF
(Appellant)	(Appellee)	(audio -- mp3)

Counsel for Appellant: Maj Vanessa Bairos, USAF (brief)
                                                 ------------------ (reply brief)
Counsel for Appellee:  Maj Frederick J. Johnson, USAF (brief)

Case Summary: The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force filed a certificate for review of Appellant's case asking the Court to address: (1) did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err when it found that Senior Airman Casillas' rights against double jeopardy were violated when he was charged at two separate courts-martial for possessing different images of child pornography on the same device; (2) if the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals correctly set aside the finding of guilty as to the possession specification based on double jeopardy, did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err by declining to set aside the finding of guilty as to the viewing specification based on double jeopardy; and (3) the trial defense counsel failed to assert the prohibitions against double jeopardy in defense of Senior Airman Casillas. If trial defense counsel waived this issue, did the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals err by declining to find ineffective assistance of counsel?

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