New Grants and Summary Dispositions


YOU ARE HERE: > HOME > GRANTS AND DISPOSITIONS
	NEW GRANTS AND SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS (Last Updated 10/21/25) Cases that have been decided will be removed from this page at the end of the term. See Daily Journal for complete court proceedings. Subscribe to this feed for updates on new grants and dispositions. Some browsers may need an add-on extension to read rss feeds. Here are the extension links for Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome. Copy link from the above feed icon and paste to rss reader extension to subscribe to the feed. Monday, October 20, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 26-0014/AR. U.S. v. Zackery J. Askins. CCA 20230303. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S SEPARATE CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 128b(1) AND 128b(5), UCMJ MULTIPLICIOUS. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 19th day of November, 2025. Wednesday, October 16, 2025 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0220/NA. U.S. v. Eric C. Babbitt. CCA 202300286. 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 hereby granted on the following issues: I. 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. II. 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. III. WHETHER THE SENTENCE INTERRUPTION PROVISION OF ARTICLE 14, UCMJ, CAN BE INVOKED AFTER A DETAINER HAS BEEN FILED. IV. IF THE NAVY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ACT, WHAT REMEDY IS THIS COURT AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE APPELLANT? Appellant will file a brief on or before November 6, 2025; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. No. 25-0238/AF. U.S. v. Ann R. Marin Perez. CCA S32771. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue: 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." Appellant will file a brief on or before November 6, 2025; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Wednesday, October 1, 2025 Appeals - Summary Dispositions No. 24-0182/AF. U.S. v. Tayari S. Vanzant. CCA 22004. On further consideration of the granted issues, 85 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2024), and in view of United States v. Folts, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), and United States v. Johnson, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. No. 25-0119/AF. U.S. v. Cameron N. Hogans. CCA 22091. On further consideration of the granted issue, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), and in view of United States v. Folts, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2025), it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. Tuesday, September 2, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0257/AF. United States, Appellant. v. Brandon B. Hunt, Appellee. CCA 40563. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues: I. CAN A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FIND A CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT UNDER ARTICLE 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866 BASED ON A MATTER NOT RAISED AS A "DEFICIENCY IN PROOF" BY THE APPELLANT? II. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 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? Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 2nd day of October, 2025. Tuesday, August 26, 2025 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0202/AF. U.S. v. Jaelen M. Johnson. CCA 40537. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: WHETHER IT WAS ERROR TO RELY ON APPELLANT'S INCIDENTAL POSSESSION OF TWO PHONES AT THE TIME OF ARREST AS THE BASIS TO SEARCH THE PHONES' CONTENTS GOING BACK MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS. Appellant will file a brief on or before September 17, 2025; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. No. 25-0212/AR. U.S. v. Jorge A. Hurtado. CCA 20240609. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE'S RULING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE MADE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS FACTUAL FINDINGS AND THE ARMY COURT'S "MERE DISAGREEMENTS" JUSTIFY DEVIATING FROM THE STANDARD THIS COURT MANDATES UNDER ARTICLE 62. On or before September 10, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief to the petition. Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Wednesday, August 20, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0244/AR. United States, Appellant. v. Isac D. Mendoza, Appellee. CCA 20210647. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22, on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION? II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN FINDING THAT THE CONVICTION WAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT? III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN APPLYING A "MAINLY BUT ALONGSIDE OTHER EVIDENCE" FRAMEWORK TO FIND APPELLANT'S CONVICTION LEGALLY SUFFICIENT? Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before September 17, 2025. Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0181/AR. U.S. v. Donte M. Brown. CCA 20230168. 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 issues: I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE INCORRECTLY ADMITTED TWO SUPPOSED PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS BY MISSTATING THE LAW, APPLYING BOTH SUBSECTIONS IN VIOLATION OF AYALA/FINCH, AND FAILING TO IDENTIFY A STATEMENT THAT PREDATED THE CLEAR AND PERSISTENT MOTIVE TO FABRICATE PURSUED BY APPELLANT. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THIS COURT'S PLAIN LANGUAGE IN AYALA/FINCH AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS WERE RELEVANT TO REHABILITATE THE WITNESS UNDER MRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) BEYOND MERE REPETITION. III. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT THE PIERRE STANDARD FROM FEDERAL COURTS FOR PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS DEFINING "RELEVANT TO REHABILITATE." Appellant will file a brief on or before September 21, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Tuesday, August 19, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0243/MC. United States, Appellant. v. Anderson A. Ixcolgonzalez, Appellee. CCA 202400253. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22, together with a motion to file the brief separately under Rule 30, on this date on the following issues: I. 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? II. 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? III. 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? IV. 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? Further action on the certificate shall be held in abeyance pending the Court's final action on the motion. Wednesday, August 6, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0233/AR. United States, Appellant. v. Zackery M. Armsbury, Appellee. CCA 20230534. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT, PURSUANT TO A "HIGHLY DISPARATE" SENTENCE THEORY, POSSESSED THE AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE APPELLANT'S BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE WHEN IT WAS A NEGOTIATED TERM OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION IN FINDING APPELLEE'S SENTENCE "HIGHLY DISPARATE" AND IN SETTING ASIDE APPELLEE'S BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 5th day of September, 2025. Tuesday, July 15, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0192/MC. U.S. v. Braxston C. Spencer. CCA 202400328. 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: UNDER ARTICLE 66, UCMJ, A CCA MUST DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A SENTENCE APART FROM ITS LEGALITY. DID THE CCA ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY SAYING IT WOULD NOT "SECOND GUESS[ ]" A SENTENCE BECAUSE IT FELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF A PLEA AGREEMENT WITHOUT INDICATING THE SENTENCE WAS ALSO APPROPRIATE? Appellant will file a brief on or before August 5, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Tuesday, July 8, 2025 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0149/MC. U.S. v. James H. Bass. CCA 202300185. 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 the petition is granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE UNDER M.R.E. 404(b) OF PRIOR POSITIVE URINALYSIS RESULTS FOR WHICH APPELLANT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ACQUITTED AT COURT-MARTIAL. II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN RELYING ON THE "PERMISSIVE INFERENCE" TO CONVICT APPELLANT UNDER ARTICLE 92 OF KNOWING USE OF A NON-CONTROLLED, COMMONLY AVAILABLE SUBSTANCE. Appellant will file a brief on or before July 29, 2025; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. No. 25-0173/AF. U.S. v. Jerin P. Menard. CCA 40496. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY APPLYING THE UNITED STATES v. HYPPOLITE, 79 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2019), "COMMON FACTORS" TEST TOO BROADLY, WHILE ALSO DECLINING TO APPLY THIS COURT'S "ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE CHARGED ACTS" STANDARD FROM UNITED STATES v. MORRISON, 52 M.J. 117 (C.A.A.F. 1999), THEREBY IMPROPERLY ADMITTING PROPENSITY EVIDENCE. On or before July 29, 2025, Appellant will file a brief, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Thursday, July 3, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0148/AF. U.S. v. John P. Matti. CCA 22072. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW APPELLANT'S CASE. II. WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THROUGH IMPROPER BOLSTERING, IMPROPER VOUCHING, IMPROPER USE OF FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, AND SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO DEFENSE IN FINDINGS ARGUMENT. On or before July 24, 2025, Appellant will file a brief on Issue II only, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Monday, June 23, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0197/AR. United States, Appellant. v. Ashley R. Ellis, Appellee. CCA 20240254. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this 23rd day of June, 2025, on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY FINDING APPELLANT HAD NOT WAIVED WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE PANEL ON THE STATE OF LAW OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY OMITTING ANALYSIS REGARDING FORFEITURE ON WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE PANEL ON THE STATE OF THE LAW OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT. III. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY FINDING A MANDATORY PANEL INSTRUCTION ON THE STATE OF THE LAW OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE. IV. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE MILITARY JUDGE NEEDED TO PROVIDE A PANEL INSTRUCTION REGARDING A QUESTION OF LAW. Wednesday, June 18, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0119/AF. U.S. v. Cameron N. Hogans. CCA 22091. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW APPELLANT'S CASE. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25. Friday, May 30, 2025 Orders Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0070/AR. U.S. v. Daytron Abdullah. CCA 20230223. 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 hereby granted on the following issue: WHETHER A RETIRED APPELLATE JUDGE AND AN APPELLATE JUDGE ON TERMINAL LEAVE IMPERMISSIBLY PARTICIPATED IN AN EN BANC DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. Appellant will file a brief on or before June 20, 2025; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief.* * Judge Maggs is recused and did not participate. No. 25-0081/AR. U.S. v. Jerome J. Forrest. CCA 20200715. 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 hereby granted on the following issue: WHETHER AN APPELLATE JUDGE ON TERMINAL LEAVE IMPERMISSIBLY PARTICIPATED IN A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. No briefs will be filed under C.A.A.F. R. 25.* * Judge Maggs is recused and did not participate. Tuesday, May 27, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0177/AF. United States, Appellant v. John D. Kershaw, Appellee. CCA 40455. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this 27th day of May, 2025, on the following issue: WHERE TIME WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR BY FINDING FACTUAL INSUFFICIENCY BASED ON A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE DATES PLEADED AND THE DATES PROVED, WHEN THE COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED A VARIANCE ANALYSIS AND FOUND A NON-FATAL VARIANCE INSTEAD? Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 26th day of June, 2025. Monday, May 5, 2025 Certificates for Review No. 25-0157/AF. U.S. v. Zachary C. Rocha. CCA 40134. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on date on the following issues: I. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FAIL TO FOLLOW THIS COURT'S REMAND INSTRUCTION BY ANALYZING THE PURPORTED LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), LIBERTY INTEREST AS "MASTURBATION IN SOLITUDE, IN SECRET, AND IN PRIVATE," INSTEAD OF "PRIVATELY ENGAG[ING] IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A CHILDLIKE SEX DOLL"? II. DID THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR IN ITS APPLICATION OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) AND UNITED STATES V. MARCUM, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004) TO FIND APPELLEE'S CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT? Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 4th day of June, 2025. No. 25-0158/MC. U.S. v. Danielle E. Deremer. CCA 202300205. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues: I. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR HOLDING APPELLANT, AT AN INTERVIEW WHERE SHE WAIVED HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL, WAS ENTITLED TO 10 U.S.C. §1044E RIGHTS WHEN SHE WAS INTERVIEWED AS A SUSPECT? II. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR FINDING THE INTERVIEW VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND FINDING THE STATEMENT INVOLUNTARY UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 304? III. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR HOLDING THAT SUPPRESSION IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR A VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C §1044E? IV. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY AFFIRMING APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR MALINGERING DESPITE HOLDING HER CONFESSION TO NCIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SURPRESSED? Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 4th day of June, 2025. Wednesday, April 23, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0102/MC. U.S. v. Jonatan O. RosarioMartinez. CCA 202300154. 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 petition is granted on the following issue: DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR IN FINDING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE SENIOR MEMBER TO BE INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE UNDER MRE 606(b)(2)(C) AND IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE FINDINGS WORKSHEET? Appellant will file a brief on or before May 14, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Monday, April 21, 2025 Certificates for Review No. 25-0140/AR. United States, Appellant v. Michael S. Malone, Jr., Appellee. CCA 20230151. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE MULTIPLICITY WHERE COUNSEL STATED DEFENSE HAD NO MOTIONS BEFORE ENTERING UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEAS AND DECLINED ADDITIONAL INQUIRY INTO MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE UNIT OF PROSECUTION. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 128b(1), UCMJ, FACIALLY DUPLICATIVE WHEN THE UNDERLYING "VIOLENT OFFENSES" WERE ASSAULT CONSUMMATED BY BATTERY AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 21st day of May, 2025. No. 25-0141/AR. United States, Appellant v. Xzavior D. Jones, Appellee. CCA 20230382. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 accompanied by a motion for suspended briefing on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE MULTIPLICITY WHERE COUNSEL STATED NO MOTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE MILITARY JUDGE AFTER ENTERING UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEAS. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLES 128(a) and 128(b), UCMJ, FACIALLY DUPLICATIVE. The accompanying motion for suspended briefing is granted. No. 25-0142/AR. United States, Appellant v. Jesus D. Calvillomagana. Appellee. CCA 20230161. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 accompanied by a motion for suspended briefing on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE MULTIPLICITY WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL ONLY PRESERVED AN ARTICLE 13 MOTION PRIOR TO ENTERING AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA AND AFTER THE MILITARY JUDGE ADVISED HIM THAT ANY OTHER MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR GRANT OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF SHOULD BE MADE. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 128(a), UCMJ, MULTIPLICIOUS. The accompanying motion for suspended briefing is granted. No. 25-0143/AR. United States, Appellant v. Patrick A. Ford, Appellee. CCA 20230263. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 accompanied by a motion for suspended briefing on this date on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVE MULTIPLICITY WHERE COUNSEL STATED DEFENSE HAD NO MOTIONS BEFORE ENTERING UNCONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEAS. II. WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 128b(1), UCMJ, MULTIPLICIOUS WHEN THE UNDERLYING "VIOLENT OFFENSES" WERE ASSAULTS CONSUMMATED BY BATTERY. The accompanying motion for suspended briefing is granted. Wednesday, March 26, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0044/AF. U.S. v. Jamal X. Washington. CCA 39761. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: WHETHER THE ORIGINAL MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE STRUCK A PORTION OF APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY. On or before April 16, 2025, Appellant will file a brief, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Monday, March 24, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0120/AF. United States, Appellant. v. Isaac J. Serjak, Appellee. CCA 40392. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING UNITED STATES V. MENDOZA, _ M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2024), TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 23rd day of April, 2025. Friday, March 14, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0089/MC. U.S. v. Alvin Valencia. CCA 202300240. 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: WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF FACTUAL INSUFFICIENCY DID NOT TRIGGER A FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66, UCMJ. Appellant will file a brief on or before April 4, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Tuesday, March 11, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0112/AF. United States, Appellant v. William C.S. Hennessy, Appellee. CCA 40439. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING UNITED STATES V. MENDOZA, _ M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2024), TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 10th day of April, 2025. Friday, March 7, 2025 Certificate for Review No. 25-0110/AF. U.S. v. Nicholas J. Moore. CCA 40442. Notice is given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issue: WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING UNITED STATES V. MENDOZA, _ M.J. _ (C.A.A.F. 2024), TO FIND APPELLEE'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT. Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 9th day of April, 2025. Tuesday, February 4, 2025 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 25-0046/AF. U.S. v. Zachary R. Braum. CCA 40434. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issue: CAN THE GOVERNMENT PROPERLY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE RELEVANT, NON-PRIVILEGED DATA IN ITS POSSESSION, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL ON THE BASIS THAT THE WITNESS WHO PROVIDED THE DATA GAVE LIMITED CONSENT WITH RESPECT TO ITS USE? IF NOT, IS RELIEF WARRANTED? Appellant will file a brief on or before February 25, 2025, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief. Thursday, October 17, 2024 Order Granting Petition for Review No. 24-0182/AF. U.S. v. Tayari S. Vanzant. CCA 22004. On consideration of Appellant's petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues: I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO REVIEW APPELLANT'S CASE. II. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES AND THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVE JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE ERRONEOUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL FIREARM PROHIBITION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 922 NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S ENDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. On or before November 7, 2024, Appellant will file a brief on Issue I only, Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief, and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief.
	United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces • 450 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20442-0001 (202) 761-1448 / DSN 763-1448 • (202) 761-4672 fax