UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-200

Thursday, July 29, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0648/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick G. McAVOY.  CCA 20031288.

No. 04-0649/NA.  U.S. v. Damon D. MUNGIN.  CCA 200301154.

No. 04-0650/MC.  U.S. v. Patrick D. BLACK.  CCA 200301734.

No. 04-0651/NA.  U.S. v. Christopher A. BROWN.  CCA 200301824.

No. 04-0652/NA.  U.S. v. Jeremy A. HEFFINGTON.  CCA 200301028.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-199

Wednesday, July 28, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0647/AR.  U.S. v. Quinn M. FLORENCE.  CCA 20000833.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 04-8026/AF.  Marcus WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent.  Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis was filed under Rule 27(a) on July 6, 2004, and placed on the docket this date.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0246/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew J. KISALA.  CCA 20000930. Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplemental brief granted, but only up to and including August 12, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 03-0369/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick L. SIMMONS.  CCA 20000153.

No. 04-0082/AF.  U.S. v. Shane T. SEIDER.  CCA 35154.

No. 04-5003/MC.  U.S. v. Esteven E. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA 200200740.

No. 04-8019/NA.  U.S. v. Jeffrey G. TOOHEY.  CCA 200001621.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-198

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

 

RULES CHANGES

 

     Upon careful consideration of certain proposed changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which were presented to and reviewed by the Rules Advisory Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and thereafter published in the Federal Register for comment, it is ordered that effective October 1, 2004, Rules 15, 21(b)(1), 24, 26, 37, and 38 are amended as provided in the attachment to this order.

 

ATTORNEYS

RULE 15.  DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

Rule 15.  DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION

 

     (a) The Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association are hereby adopted as the rules of conduct for members of the Bar of this Court.  After notice, investigation, and hearing as provided in this rule, the Court may take any disciplinary action it deems appropriate for failure to comply with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.


     (b) For purposes of this rule, the Court shall appoint an Investigations Committee consisting of 5 members of the Bar of this Court who shall be appointed for a period of 3 years.  The Investigations Committee shall consider such complaints as may be referred to it for investigation, including the taking of evidence, and shall submit a report of such investigation to the Court.


     (c) Upon receipt and docketing of a written complaint under oath of unprofessional conduct against a member of its Bar, the Court will cause a copy thereof to be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the attorney thus accused.  The Clerk will, in addition, acknowledge by letter, to the person filing such complaint, the receipt thereof.  The accused attorney will answer the complaint by filing a formal

pleading responsive to each allegation of misconduct within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, but extensions of time may be granted by order of the Court on the accused attorney’s application.  A complaint will be docketed only if the Court makes a preliminary determination that it is not frivolous.


     (d) On consideration of the complaint and answer, and if it believes a substantial basis exists for the complaint, the Court will refer the matter to its Investigations Committee for consideration under subsection (b).  Otherwise, the Court will dismiss the complaint.  Any such investigation will be held privately, unless the accused attorney requests that it be opened to the public.


     (e) On receiving the report of the Investigations Committee, the Court may dismiss the complaint or order the matter set down for hearing, giving due notice to the accused attorney.  At the hearing, the accused attorney will be given opportunity to present such matters relevant to the complaint as he or she deems appropriate and to examine any witnesses against such attorney.  All documents received in connection with a complaint under this rule shall be furnished to the accused attorney.  A majority vote of the Court is necessary to find an attorney guilty of unprofessional conduct and to fix any penalty.


     (f) (1) When it is shown to the Court that any member of its Bar has been disbarred or suspended from practice by any court, such member will be forthwith called upon to show cause within 30 days why similar action should not be taken by this Court.  Upon the filing of the member’s answer to an order to show cause, or upon expiration of 30 days if no answer is filed, the Court will enter an appropriate order; but no order of disbarment or suspension will be entered except with the concurrence of a majority of the judges participating.


     (2) When it has been shown to the Court that a member of the Bar of the Court has been convicted by court-martial or by other court of competent jurisdiction of conduct which evidences a failure to comply with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and such conviction has become final, the Court may, in lieu of the complaint and investigative procedures set forth in subsections (b) through (e), initiate a disciplinary action under this rule by issuance of an order to such person to show cause why the person should not be disbarred.  Upon the filing of the member’s answer to an order

to show cause, or upon expiration of 30 days if no answer is filed, the Court will set the matter for hearing, giving the member due notice thereof, or enter such other order as may be deemed appropriate; but no order of disbarment or suspension will be entered except with the concurrence of a majority of the judges participating.


     (g) Penalties for unprofessional conduct may extend to reprimand, suspension, or disbarment.


     (h) Except for an order of reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, no papers, pleadings, or other information relative to a complaint in a disciplinary proceeding will be published or released to the public without prior approval of the Court.  The docket of matters arising under this rule shall not be available to the public.

[Amended July 16, 1990, effective August 15, 1990; amended March 26, 1998, effective May 1, 1998.]


     (a)  The Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association are hereby adopted as the rules of conduct for members of the Bar of this Court.  To the extent that these rules are inconsistent with applicable service rules of professional conduct, the conduct of judge advocates will be reviewed under the rules of their service.  To the extent that these rules are inconsistent with the rules of professional conduct which apply in the location where a civilian member of the bar maintains a principal office, the conduct of civilian counsel will be reviewed under the rules of their licensing jurisdiction.

 

     (b)  Whenever a member of the Bar of this Court has been disbarred or suspended from practice in any court of record, the Court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this Court and affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 30 days, why a disbarment order should not be entered.  Upon response, or if no response is timely filed, the Court will enter an appropriate order.


     (c)  If it appears that a member of the Bar of this Court has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, or failed to comply with this Rule or any other Rule or order of the Court, the Court may enter an order affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 30 days, why disciplinary action should not be taken.  If the member, in responding to the show cause order, raises material questions of fact, the Court may appoint a special master who shall hold a hearing and prepare proposed findings of fact and recommendations. 

After affording the member of the bar a reasonable opportunity to prepare written objections to the proposed findings of fact and recommendations, the proposed findings and recommendations, together with any written objections thereto, shall be submitted to the Court.  Upon due consideration thereof, the Court may take such disciplinary action as it deems appropriate against the member of the Bar.


RULE 21.  SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR GRANT OF REVIEW

 

     (b)  The supplement to the petition shall be filed in accordance with the applicable time limit set forth in Rule 19(a)(5)(A) or (B), shall include an Appendix required by Rule 24(a), shall conform to the provisions of Rules 24(b), 35A, and 37, and shall contain:

 

     (1)  A statement of the errors assigned for review by the Court, expressed concisely in relation to the circumstances of the case, without unnecessary detail.  The assigned errors should be short and should not be argumentative or repetitive.

 

RULE 24.  FORM, CONTENT, AND PAGE LIMITATIONS

 

     (a) Form and content.  All briefs shall conform to the printing, copying, and style requirements of Rule 37, shall be legible, and shall be substantially as follows:

 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES

 

UNITED STATES,          )   

             (Appellee) )   

             (Appellant) )    BRIEF ON BEHALF

             (Respondent))    OF (APPELLANT,

          v.            )    APPELLEE, ETC.)

______________________  )

(Full typed name, rank, )    Crim.App. Dkt. No. ______

 & service of accused) )

(Service no. ___),      )    USCA Dkt. No. ________

           (Appellant)  )

           (Appellee)   )

           (Petitioner) )

 

Index of Brief

[Same.]

Table of Cases, Statutes, and Other Authorities

Issue(s) Presented

[Same.]

Statement of Statutory Jurisdiction

[Same.]

Statement of the Case

[Same.]

Statement of Facts

[Same.]

Summary of Argument

[Same.]

Argument

[Same.]

Conclusion

[Same.]

Appendix

[Same.]

 

(b) Page limitations.  Unless otherwise authorized by order of the Court, by motion of a party granted by the Court (see Rule 30), or by Rule 24(c), the page limitations for briefs filed with the Court, not including appendices, shall be as follows:

 

(1) Briefs of the appellants/petitioners shall not exceed 30 pages;

 

(2) Answers of the appellees/petitioners shall not exceed 30 pages;

 

(3) Replies of the appellants/petitioners shall not exceed 15 pages.

 

(c) Type-volume limitations.

 

(1) A brief of the appellants/petitioners and an answer of the appellees/respondents is acceptable if:

 

·        it contains no more than 14,000 words; or

·        contains no more than 1,300 lines of text.

 

(2) A reply is acceptable if it contains no more than half of the type-volume specified in Rule 24(c)(1).

 

(3) Headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the word and line limitations.  The index, table of cases, statutes, and other authorities, the appendix and any certificates of counsel do not count toward the limitation.

 

(d)  Certificate of Compliance.  A brief submitted under Rule 24(c) must include a certificate stating that the brief complies with the type-volume limitation and Rule 37.  The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word or line count of the word-processing system used to prepare the brief.  The certificate must state either:

 

 

(i) the number of words in the brief; or

(ii) the number of lines of monospaced type in the brief.

 

(e) Form of Certificate of Compliance.

 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 24(d)

 

1.  This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Rule 24(d) because:

 

[principal brief may not exceed 14,000 words or 1,300 lines; reply or amicus brief may not exceed 7,000 words or 650 lines; line count can be used only with monospaced type]

 

 

 

     This brief contains ____________ [state the

number of] words,

 

                        or

 

 

     This brief contains ____________ [state the

number of] lines of text.

 

2.  This brief complies with the typeface and type style requirements of Rule 37 because:

 

[12-point font must be used with monospaced typeface, such as Courier or Courier New]

 

 

 

 

     This brief has been prepared in a monospaced

typeface using ________________________________

[state name and version of word processing

program, e.g., Microsoft Word Version 2000 with

__________________________

[state number of characters per inch and name

of type style].

 

/s/ ______________________________________________________

 

Attorney for _____________________________________________

 

Dated: __________________

 

Rule 26.  AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

 

     (d)  A brief of an amicus curiae shall not exceed 30 pages, excluding appendices.  Except by the Court’s permission, a brief of an amicus curiae may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by Rule 24 for a brief for an appellant/petitioner.  If the Court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief.

 

RULE 37.  PRINTING, COPYING AND STYLE REQUIREMENTS

 

(a)  Printing.  Except for records of trial and as otherwise provided by Rule 27(a)(4), all pleadings or other papers relative to a case shall be typewritten and double-spaced, printed on one side only on white unglazed paper, 8.5 by 11 inches in size, securely fastened in the top left corner.  “With the exception of footnotes, which may be 11 point proportionally spaced typeface, aAll printed matter must appear in non-proportional monospaced typeface, e.g., Courier or Courier New, using 12-point type with no more than ten and ½ characters per inch.  Margins must be at least 1 inch on all four sides.  Page numbers may be placed in the margin but no text may appear in the margin.  Headings, footnotes, and block quotations may be single-spaced, but should not be used excessively to avoid page limit requirements.”

 

RULE 38.  SIGNATURES

 
(a)  General.  Except for documents filed in propria persona and those provided for in subsection (b), all original pleadings or other papers filed in a case will bear the signature of at least one counsel who is a member of this Court’s Bar and who is participating in the case.  The name, address, telephone number, Court Bar number, and rank, if any, of the person signing, together with the capacity in which such counsel signs the paper, will be included.  This signature will constitute a certificate that the statements made in the pleading or paper are true and correct to the best of the counsel’s knowledge, information, or belief, and that the pleading or paper is filed in good faith and not for the purpose of unnecessary delay.  A counsel who signs a pleading “for” some other counsel whose name is typed under such signature must, in addition, affix their own signature in a separate signature block with their own name, address, telephone number, Court Bar number, and rank, if any, typed thereunder.

 

(b)  [Same.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0646/AR.  U.S. v. Michael J. BROWN.  CCA 20031174.


 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-197

Monday, July 26, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0637/AR.  U.S. v. James H. COLEMAN.  CCA 20020546.

No. 04-0638/AR.  U.S. v. Cristopher W. HARPER.  CCA 20030709.

No. 04-0639/AF.  U.S. v. Geoffrey D. WELSH.  CCA 34964.

No. 04-0640/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher K. WARE.  CCA S30453.

No. 04-0641/AF.  U.S. v. Juan J. JARVIS.  CCA S30226.

No. 04-0642/NA.  U.S. v. Yibeltal N. WORKINEH.  CCA 200301839.

No. 04-0643/NA.  U.S. v. Frederick J. SMITH.  CCA 200301651.

No. 04-0644/NA.  U.S. v. Joshua N. WARREN.  CCA 200300981.

No. 04-0645/MC.  U.S. v. Eric FLORES.  CCA 200301731.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 98-0497/NA.  U.S. v. Charles W. DAVIS.  CCA 9600585.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including August 10, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-196

Friday, July 23, 2004


ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0291/AR.  U.S. v. Arturo CANO.  CCA 20010086.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE'S ERROR IN NOT DISCLOSING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS OF A VICTIM DID NOT MATERIALLY PREJUDICE APPELLANT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROBERTS, 59 M.J. 323, 327 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

 

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0381/AR.  U.S. v. Cedric L. AARON.  CCA 20000747.

No. 04-0432/AR.  U.S. v. Luis A. BARRIOS-HERNANDEZ.  CCA 20020724.

No. 04-0531/AR.  U.S. v. Roddy E. RUMMEL, Jr.  CCA 20031140.

No. 04-0541/AR.  U.S. v. Cornelius D. GOULD.  CCA 20030672.

No. 04-0564/AR.  U.S. v. Johnathan P. OLENSKI.  CCA 20021174.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0630/AR.  U.S. v. Brian J. LEA.  CCA 20031156.

No. 04-0631/MC.  U.S. v. Karon BROWN.  CCA 200301675.

No. 04-0632/MC.  U.S. v. Eric W. PETRIE.  CCA 200301535.

No. 04-0633/NA.  U.S. v. Terry W. CAPERS.  CCA 200301714.

No. 04-0634/NA.  U.S. v. Leo A. HEUSER.  CCA 200301882.

No. 04-0635/MC.  U.S. v. Gary M. JOHNSON.  CCA 200301875.

No. 04-0636/NA.  U.S. v. Zaymen D. OWENS.  CCA 200201554.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 03-0369/AR.  U.S. v. Patrick L. SIMMONS.  CCA 20000153.  Appellee’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s opinion, 59 M.J. 485 (C.A.A.F. 2004), denied.

 

No. 04-0082/AF.  U.S. v. Shane T. SEIDER.  CCA 235154.  Appellant’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s opinion, 60 M.J. 36 (C.A.A.F. 2004), denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0489/AR.  U.S. v. Everette J. HARMON.  CCA 20010697.  Appellee's motions to stay proceedings denied.

 

No. 04-0524/AR.  U.S. v. John M. ARNOLD.  CCA 20010713.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including August 10, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0561/AR.  U.S. v. James K. STEWART.  CCA 20031309.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to petition for grant of review granted to August 23, 2004.

 

No. 04-8015/NA.  U.S. v. Russell B. MULLINS.  CCA 200200988.  Appellant's motion to file petition for reconsideration granted and petition for reconsideration of this Court’s order dated April 28, 2004, denied.

 

No. 04-8025/NA.  U.S. v. Wade L. WALKER.  CCA 9501607. Respondent's motion to extend time to file response to Court's order granted, but only up to and including August 10, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 02-0603/AR.  U.S. v. Michael A. PAULING.  CCA 9700685.

 

  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-195

Thursday, July 22, 2004


ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 02-0060/MC.  U.S. v. Anthony L. JONES.  CCA 200100066.  On further consideration of the petition for grant of review, and the previously specified issue, and in light of United States v. Tardif, 59 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (summary disposition), the Court further specifies the following additional issue:

 

DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF PREJUDICE FROM UNREASONABLE POST-TRIAL DELAY (LOSS OF AN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY SUPPORTED BY THREE UNREBUTTED DECLARATIONS) WAS “TOO SPECULATIVE,” AND DENIED RELIEF?

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0622/AF.  U.S. v. Jeffrey L. BEAGLE.  CCA 35690.

No. 04-0623/AF.  U.S. v. Matthew L. DAVIS.  CCA 35548.

No. 04-0624/AF.  U.S. v. Tristan C. RAND.  CCA S30255.

No. 04-0625/AF.  U.S. v. Jesus A. SOLIS.  CCA 35321.

No. 04-0626/NA.  U.S. v. Adolfo H. TOLEDO.  CCA 200201141.

No. 04-0627/MC.  U.S. v. Gregory J. LENTSCH.  CCA 200300275.

No. 04-0628/MC.  U.S. v. Clevon O. HAYDEN.  CCA 200100457.

No. 04-0629/NA.  U.S. v. Roger S. PORT.  CCA 200300817.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0655/MC.  U.S. v. Keith W. STROTHER.  CCA 200000050.  Appellee's motion to extend time to file an answer to final brief granted up to and including August 6, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 03-0678/AR.  U.S. v. John H. STEBBINS.  CCA 20000497.  On further consideration of the previously granted petition, it is ordered that briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I.  See United States v. Ronghi, 60 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (holding that confinement for life without eligibility for parole is an authorized punishment for premeditated murders and felony murders committed after November 18, 1997, but limiting its holding to these offenses).

 

No. 04-0502/AR.  U.S. v. Tommie M. MARTIN.  CCA 9400504.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including August 9, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0566/NA.  U.S. v. Thomas J. WELLS.  CCA 200000145.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to August 25, 2004.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-194

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0168/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy J. LAJAUNIE.  CCA 35104.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the convening authority took action on this case before we announced our decision in United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  In his action, the convening authority purported to waive the automatic forfeitures imposed under Article 58b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 858b (2000), without modifying the adjudged forfeiture of all pay and allowances.  The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the convening authority’s action was “technically incorrect” because it did not comply with our guidance in Emminizer.  The Air Force Court nevertheless held that “there [wa]s no cause to remand the case for a new action or to disapprove forfeitures.”

 

     Appellant asserts that he is prejudiced by the action’s irregularity because it subjects him to possible recoupment of the forfeitures that were paid to his wife.  Appellant cites a Defense Department regulation concerning collection of forfeitures that were erroneously paid.  Dep’t of Defense, Directive 7000.14-R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, at Volume 7A, chapter 48 (February 2001).  The Government argues that such recoupment is discretionary and the possibility of any resulting prejudice is “speculative,” but nevertheless acknowledges that “the government has the authority to recoup the funds.”  The Government, however, maintains that “Appellant’s dependents,” rather than Appellant himself, “would be liable for any recoupment.” 

 

     We conclude that Appellant has made a “colorable showing of possible prejudice” arising from the action’s irregularity.  See United States v. Chatman, 46 M.J. 321, 324 (C.A.A.F. 1997). 

 

     Accordingly, said petition is granted on the following issues:

I.  WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGED WAS NOT “TECHNICALLY” CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.

 

II.  WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN ASSESSING PREJUDICE UNDER ARTICLE 59, UCMJ, WHERE IT DID NOT CONSIDER PREJUDICE THAT WILL OCCUR BY OPERATION OF REGULATION WHEN APPELLANT RECEIVES HIS FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PAY.

 

     That the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening authority’s action are set aside; and,

 

     That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to a convening authority for a new action consistent with this Court’s decision in Emminizer.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 
    CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):  Both the UCMJ and the principle of judicial economy require me to dissent in this case.  Article 60(c)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860(c)(2) (2000), grants the convening authority “sole discretion” in deciding the appropriate action on sentences.  Pursuant both to this statute and Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858b (2000), the convening authority permitted Appellant’s dependents to be paid Appellant’s pay and allowances for six months after the action.  Appellant now complains that because the convening authority’s clemency action contained a technical deficiency that could theoretically work to Appellant’s detriment sometime in the future, he is entitled to a new action.  In agreeing, the Court not only takes an overly technical view, but eschews a more efficient disposition, ignores the substantial prejudice test of Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (2000), and gratuitously applies an unnecessarily paternalistic standard that will, presumably, be applied henceforth to scrivener’s errors in the actions of all convening authorities.

 

     For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

 

     A.  Theoretical Prejudice

 

     The Court is being overly technical when it requires the convening authority to take additional action on adjudged forfeitures before there may be a waiver and the payment of waived forfeitures to Appellant’s dependents.  There is no evidence that Appellant’s dependents did not receive the waived forfeitures.  There is no prejudice to Appellant or his family members based on the action taken in this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Even if, as Appellant alleges, Department of Defense guidance permits recoupment of improperly waived forfeitures from his dependents, such action is entirely speculative, rendering the Court’s “remedy” prospective, rather than curative.  In order for the possible prejudice alleged by Appellant to exist, some parsimonious fiscal officer of the government would have to (1) scrutinize United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002), apply it to these facts, and decide that, because the convening authority didn’t say the magic words, the waived forfeitures were “an erroneous payment”;1 (2) disregard both the convening authority’s plainly stated intention, as well as the AFCCA’s opinion that the action “clearly reflects the convening authority’s intention to waive the mandatory forfeiture of pay and allowances . . . for the benefit of appellant’s  dependents”;2 and (3) initiate an involuntary collection of the “erroneous payment,” even though there was a perfectly lawful basis for the waived forfeitures to have been paid.

 

     Emminizer is not inconsistent with the view I take.  In Emminizer, the Court held that the appellant was prejudiced because the convening authority did not waive the adjudged forfeitures because of the misadvice by the staff judge advocate (SJA).  Appellant was clearly prejudiced in that case by the SJA’s action in not spelling out the alternatives that would have allowed a waiver of the forfeitures and payments to the appellant’s dependents.  Here, there was no prejudice because there was a waiver of forfeitures.

 

     B.  A Simpler Cure

 

     Even assuming error and prejudice, judicial economy demands that we cure the error in our decretal paragraph, or direct that a service court do so, rather than burdening SJAs and convening authorities with execution and review of new actions to cure trivial errors.  The convening authority plainly intended to direct payment of the full measure of Appellant’s pay and allowances to his dependents for six months.  To achieve that end, the convening authority could either have disapproved or suspended adjudged forfeitures, with either action having the same effect today.  Knowing that, and assuming both error and prejudice, we should simply disapprove adjudged forfeitures.  We have not hesitated in the past to cure errors arising from imposition of forfeitures pursuant to Article 58b, and we need not do so now.3

 

     C.  Unnecessary Legal Test

 

     The order unnecessarily and unwisely expands the applicability of a low threshold test for prejudice previously applied only to errors relating to fairness in the process of recommending and approving an appropriate, clement sentence.  The majority’s application, without explanation, of the “colorable showing of possible prejudice”4 test to administrative or typographical errors in a convening authority’s action, ignores the Article 59(a) test that there must be error that “materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.”  The majority’s action is tantamount to chumming for a fish that may be bigger than your boat.


-----------------------

1 DoD Financial Management Regulation, February 2001, at Volume 7A, Chapter 48, paragraph 480105.

2 United States v. Lajaunie, ACM 35104 (A.F.Ct.Crim. App. 2003).

3 United States v. Gorski, 47 M.J. 370 (C.A.A.F. 1997).

4 United States v. Chatman, 46 M.J. 321 (C.A.A.F. 1997).

------------------------

 

No. 04-0113/AF.  U.S. v. Rodriguez L. MEDINA.  CCA 34783.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of this Court’s order in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004), said petition is granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGED WAS NOT "TECHNICALLY" CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.

 

II. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN ASSESSING PREJUDICE UNDER ARTICLE 59, UCMJ, WHERE IT DID NOT CONSIDER PREJUDICE THAT WILL OCCUR BY OPERATION OF REGULATION WHEN APPELLANT RECEIVES HIS FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PAY.

 

That the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening authority’s action are set aside; and

 

That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to a convening authority for a new action consistent with this Court’s decision in United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):  I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004)(Crawford, C.J., dissenting).

 

No. 04-0169/AF.  U.S. v. Gregory L. PARKER.  CCA 34430.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of this Court’s order in United States v. Lajaunie, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004), said petition is granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66(c), UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGED WAS NOT “TECHNICALLY” CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.

 

II.  WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN ASSESSING PREJUDICE UNDER ARTICLE 59, UCMJ, WHERE IT DID NOT CONSIDER PREJUDICE THAT WILL OCCUR BY OPERATION OF REGULATION WHEN APPELLANT RECEIVES HIS FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PAY.

 

     That the decision of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening authority’s action are set aside; and

 

     That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to a convening authority for a new action in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004)(Crawford, C. J., dissenting).

 

No. 04-0310/AF.  U.S. v. Michael A. VAN BIBBER.  CCA S30119.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of this Court’s order in United States v. Lajaunie, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004), said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66(c) UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.

 

     That the decision of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening authority’s action are set aside; and

 

     That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to a convening authority for a new action in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):  I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004)(Crawford, C. J., dissenting).

 

No. 04-0311/AF.  U.S. v. Delvin J. BARNES.  CCA 35048.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of this Court’s order in United States v. Lajaunie, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004), said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66(c) UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.

 

     That the decision of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening authority’s action are set aside; and

 

     That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to a convening authority for a new action in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):  I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004)(Crawford, C. J., dissenting).

 

No. 04-0312/AF.  U.S. v. Ronald W. WENSLEY.  CCA 35116.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and in light of this Court’s order in United States v. Lajaunie, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004), said petition is granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 66(c) UCMJ, BY AFFIRMING A SENTENCE THAT WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACT AND WAS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY.

 

     That the decision of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the convening authority’s action are set aside; and

 

     That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to a convening authority for a new action in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting):  I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Lajaunie, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2004)(Crawford, C. J., dissenting).

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0113/AF.  U.S. v. Rodriguez L. MEDINA.  CCA 34783.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0168/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy J. LAJAUNIE.  CCA 35104.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0169/AF.  U.S. v. Gregory L. PARKER.  CCA 34430.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0310/AF.  U.S. v. Michael A. VAN BIBBER.  CCA S30119.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0311/AF.  U.S. v. Delvin J. BARNES.  CCA 35048.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0312/AF.  U.S. v. Ronald W. WENSLEY.  CCA 35116.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0283/AF.  U.S. v. Jonathan L. OAKS.  CCA 34676.

No. 04-0368/AF.  U.S. v. Marcus L. WILLIAMS.  CCA 35122.

No. 04-0371/AR.  U.S. v. Arturo A. MORGAN.  CCA 20000928.

No. 04-0439/MC.  U.S. v. Richard GRICE.  CCA 200201657.

No. 04-0499/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph F. OROZCO.  CCA 35130.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0617/NA.  U.S. v. Ismael RIOS.  CCA 200300887.

No. 04-0618/NA.  U.S. v. Roland R. DUKE.  CCA 200301488.

No. 04-0619/MC.  U.S. v. Jeramy L. KELLEY.  CCA 200301983.

No. 04-0620/NA.  U.S. v. Jeremy B. COLLINS.  CCA 200300809.

No. 04-0621/NA.  U.S. v. William E. CARMICHAEL.  CCA 9901271.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0250/AR.  U.S. v. Jonathan G. SCALO.  CCA 20020624.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including August 5, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 04-0483/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew L. DAUGHERTY.  CCA 20030930.  Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 04-0537/AR.  U.S. v. Cleophus JACKSON.  CCA 20020793.  Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 04-0556/AF.  U.S. v. Benjamin J. GIEM.  CCA 35277.  Appellant's motion to submit corrected page granted.

 

No. 04-0559/AR.  U.S. v. Richard C. BRESNAHAN.  CCA 20010304.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to August 20, 2004.

 

No. 04-0560/AR.  U.S. v. Enrique FLORES-RIVERA, Jr.  CCA 20010505.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to August 20, 2004.

 

No. 04-0587/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. PROCTOR.  CCA 20030200.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted to September 7, 2004.

 

No. 04-0592/MC.  U.S. v. Sherman M. JENKINS.  CCA 200301246.  Appellant's motion to attach granted.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 03-0520/AR.  U.S. v. Frank J. RONGHI.  CCA 20000635.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-193

Tuesday, July 20, 2004


APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0318/AR.  U.S. v. Ronald E. V. LAYTON.  CCA 20010270.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is hereby granted and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0238/AF.  U.S. v. John C. HARRIS.  CCA 34918.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE HE SUFFERED FROM A SEVERE MENTAL DISEASE AT THE TIME OF HIS OFFENSES THAT RENDERED HIM UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE WRONGFULNESS OF HIS ACTIONS.

 

No. 04-0318/AR.  U.S. v. Ronald E. V. LAYTON.  CCA 20010270.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 04-0348/AR.  U.S. v. Justin L. BROOKS.  CCA 20000901.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS TO ENGAGE IN AN ACT OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (SPECIFICATION 2 OF CHARGE I) IS SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, OR A PERSON PRETENDING TO BE UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, WAS EVER PERSUADED, INDUCED, ENTICED, OR COERCED TO ENGAGE IN AN ACT OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0369/NA.  U.S. v. Donnell WILLIAMS.  CCA 200202285.

No. 04-0374/AF.  U.S. v. John P. DAUGHERTY.  CCA 34819.

No. 04-0460/AR.  U.S. v. Rodrigo A. ZAPATARODRIGUEZ.  CCA 20031089.

No. 04-0472/AR.  U.S. v. Jose A. AVILES.  CCA 20031001.

No. 04-0490/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip G. READER.  CCA 20020186.

No. 04-0495/AF.  U.S. v. Eric B. HILL.  CCA 35625.

No. 04-0505/NA.  U.S. v. Tyler W. ANDREWS.  CCA 200301410.

No. 04-0514/AR.  U.S. v. Juan S. INIGOVAZQUEZ.  CCA 20020994.

No. 04-0516/AF.  U.S. v. Zachary R. SALYERS.  CCA 35684.

No. 04-0522/AR.  U.S. v. Charles E. MATTHEWS.  CCA 20031099.

No. 04-0525/AR.  U.S. v. Shawn E. DEAL.  CCA 20030540.

No. 04-0529/AF.  U.S. v. Jason B. MONTONDO.  CCA 35754.

No. 04-0535/AR.  U.S. v. Brennan C. EMERSON.  CCA 20030605.

No. 04-0546/AR.  U.S. v. Deanna A. INGRAM.  CCA 20030674.

No. 04-0552/AR.  U.S. v. Kelly J. GLASS.  CCA 20030638.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0613/AR.  U.S. v. Virgil J. STEWART II.  CCA 20040072.

No. 04-0614/AR.  U.S. v. Darrell K. HAYNES.  CCA 20010580.

No. 04-0615/MC.  U.S. v. Felix F. VELEZ.  CCA 200301143.

No. 04-0616/NA.  U.S. v. Tyrone L. DICKS.  CCA 200101567.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0191/AR.  U.S. v. Mark G. SARAZINE.  CCA 20020321.  Appellee’s motion to remand granted.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals for further proceedings.  Thereafter, Article 67, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2002) will apply.

 

No. 04-0500/AR.  U.S. v. Kristina L. COSSICH.  CCA 20020856.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file supplement to petition for grant of review granted, but only up to and including August 4, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 03-0272/NA.  U.S. v. Franklin M. BARTON.  CCA 200100732.

No. 03-0614/NA.  U.S. v. Joshua S. DANIELS.  CCA 200001604.

 

  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-192

Monday, July 19, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0608/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas N. HAMMOND.  CCA 20010710.

No. 04-0609/CG.  U.S. v. Gregory L. TURNER.  CCA 1206.

No. 04-0610/AF.  U.S. v. Wayne E. DANIELS.  CCA 35642.

No. 04-0611/AF.  U.S. v. Antoinette E. JOHNSON.  CCA 34889.

No. 04-0612/CG.  U.S. v. Shams I. ABDUL-RAHMAN.  CCA 1192.

  


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-191

Friday, July 16, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0606/AF.  U.S. v. Alexander L. COHEN.  CCA 34975.

No. 04-0607/AF.  U.S. v. Thomas M. GORENCE.  CCA S30296.




 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-190

Thursday, July 15, 2004

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0338/AR.  U.S. v. Erik G. KING.  CCA 20021298.  On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, said petition is granted on the following issue personally raised by Appellant and modified by the Court:

 

WHETHER FURTHER FACTFINDING IS NECESSARY WHERE:

 

(1) APPELLANT HAS ALLEGED THAT HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL:

 

(A) DISCOURAGED HIM FROM ENTERING INTO A PRETRIAL AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDED A 24-MONTH CAP ON CONFINEMENT; (B) ENCOURAGED HIM TO INSTEAD PLEAD GUILTY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A PRETRIAL AGREEMENT; AND (C) GAVE HIM A PERSONAL GUARANTEE THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE WOULD NOT IMPOSE MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS OF CONFINEMENT;

 

(2) THE MILITARY JUDGE SENTENCED APPELLANT TO CONFINEMENT FOR THREE YEARS, A BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGE, AND REDUCTION TO PAY GRADE E-1; AND

 

(3) THE CONVENING AUTHORITY APPROVED THE SENTENCE AS ADJUDGED.

 

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court to obtain an affidavit from the trial defense counsel responding to Appellant’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.  In the course of conducting its new review under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2000), the Court of Criminal Appeals shall review the trial defense counsel’s affidavit and any other relevant matters.  See United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F. 1997).  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2000), shall apply.  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 04-0338/AR.  U.S. v. Erik G. KING.  CCA 20021298.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 02-0443/AR.  U.S. v. Scott D. GIBSON.  CCA 9900573.*/

No. 04-0601/MC.  U.S. v. Albert F. DUCHARME.  CCA 200100233.

No. 04-0602/NA.  U.S. v. Hector CAMARILLO, Jr.  CCA 200301464.

No. 04-0603/MC.  U.S. v. Jose R. ORTIZ.  CCA 200302020.

No. 04-0604/NA.  U.S. v. Tyrone J. FORNEY.  CCA 200001573.

No. 04-0605/MC.  U.S. v. James R. ISSENNOCK.  CCA 200302006.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 04-8025/NA.  Wade L. WALKER, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent.  CCA 9501607.  Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition was filed under Rule 27(a), together with Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings on 30 June, 2004 and placed on the docket this date.  The motion to stay proceedings is granted.  Respondent will show cause on or before July 26, 2004, why the requested relief sought should not be granted.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0191/AR.  U.S. v. Mark G. SARAZINE.  CCA 20020321.  Appellee's motion to extend time to file an answer to final brief granted up to and including July 30, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, notwithstanding the pending motion to remand, no further extension of time will be granted to file the answer in this case.

 

No. 04-0295/AR.  U.S. v. Eric MCNUTT.  CCA 20020022.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file final brief granted, but only up to and including July 30, 2004; and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

____________

 

*/  Second petition filed in this case.

 

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-189

Wednesday, July 14, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0515/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy B. SOCHA.  CCA 35655.

No. 04-0518/AF.  U.S. v. Travis J. MYERS.  CCA S30229.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0599/AR.  U.S. v. Rudolf GONZALEZ, Jr.  CCA 20031005.

No. 04-0600/AR.  U.S. v. Jason E. RUDIN.  CCA 20031287.

 

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-188

Tuesday, July 13, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0598/CG.  U.S. v. Mark B. HOLZ.  CCA 1198.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 03-0279/NA.  U.S. v. Jaime J. PINERO.  CCA 20011373.

No. 03-0620/AR.  U.S. v. William T. LUNDY.  CCA 2000069.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-187

Monday, July 12, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0597/AR.  U.S. v. Robert C. SPARKS.  CCA 20020822.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 04-8022/AR.  United States, Appellee, v. Mallory K. TATE, Appellant.  CCA 20040637.  Writ-appeal petition denied without prejudice to Appellant’s right to raise the matter asserted in the petition during the course of normal appellate review.  Appellant’s motion for stay of proceedings denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0647/AR.  United States, Cross-Appellant/Appellee, v. Ray T. LEAK, Cross-Appellee/Appellant.  CCA 20000356.  Appellant's motion to correct errata granted.

 

No. 04-0081/AF.  U.S. v. Mathew P. SCHEURER.  CCA 34866.  Appellant's motion to submit corrected page granted.

 

No. 04-0291/AR.  U.S. v. Arturo CANO.  CCA 20010086.  Appellant's motion to attach defense appellate exhibit A granted.

 

No. 04-5005/NA.  United States, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Todd R. FORBES, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.  CCA 9901454.  Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s motions to extend time to file final brief to July 19, 2004, and to submit additional information, granted. 




UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-186

Friday, July 09, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0589/AR.  U.S. v. Brad S. BISIKIRSKI.  CCA 20020810.

No. 04-0590/NA.  U.S. v. Kevin A. ROSENBERG.  CCA 200100797.

No. 04-0591/NA.  U.S. v. E'Randal K. WILLIS.  CCA 200200842.

No. 04-0592/MC.  U.S. v. Sherman M. JENKINS.  CCA 200301246.

No. 04-0593/MC.  U.S. v. Zachariah R. DELACRUZ.  CCA 200101482.

No. 04-0594/AF.  U.S. v. Robert L. FRENCH.  CCA S30183.

No. 04-0595/AF.  U.S. v. Jake P. PACE.  CCA S30518.

No. 04-0596/AF.  U.S. v. Roberto L. OLIVARES.  CCA S30545.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 02-0593/AF.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. KNIGHT.  CCA 34473.  Appellee's motion to unseal documents denied as moot.

  


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-185

Thursday, July 08, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 04-0387/AR.  U.S. v. Benjamin MOBLEY.  CCA 20011138.

No. 04-0395/AF.  U.S. v. Justin L. OZBUN.  CCA S30210.

No. 04-0417/AR.  U.S. v. Kelly J. OBIALA.  CCA 20021380.

No. 04-0419/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron T. MCPHERSON.  CCA 20030728.

No. 04-0474/NA.  U.S. v. Anthony BELL.  CCA 200201125.

No. 04-0486/AR.  U.S. v. Clint B. VARNES.  CCA 20020619.

No. 04-0496/AF.  U.S. v. Kenderic L. HOOKS.  CCA 35638.

No. 04-0506/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy L. BUTTS.  CCA 20030483.

No. 04-0510/AF.  U.S. v. Anthony T. SURLES.  CCA S30531.

No. 04-0511/AF.  U.S. v. Michael J. TINKLEPAUGH.  CCA 35795.

No. 04-0517/AF.  U.S. v. Thuyet H. NGUYEN.  CCA 35323.

No. 04-0521/AR.  U.S. v. Javier VALENTIN.  CCA 20031146.

No. 04-0523/AR.  U.S. v. Zachary W. STEPHENS.  CCA 20030732.

No. 04-0527/AF.  U.S. v. Kristina M. PADDOCK.  CCA S30309.

No. 04-0536/AR.  U.S. v. Jerome G. CARR Jr.  CCA 20031111.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0588/NA.  U.S. v. Stevon J. TAYLOR.  CCA 200202294.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 02-0849/AF.  U.S. v. Robert L. MASON, Jr.  CCA 34394.

No. 03-0224/AF.  U.S. v. Kent D. IRVIN.  CCA 34756.

No. 03-0561/AR.  U.S. v. William A. BYRD.  CCA 9901101.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-184

Wednesday, July 07, 2004


ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 03-0646/AR.  U.S. v. Michael S. FARLEY.  CCA 20001079.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY AT TRIAL WAIVED HIS FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS RETROACTIVELY WITH RESPECT TO INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED WHILE IN PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT AND LATER USED DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE OF HIS TRIAL.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 04-0435/NA.  U.S. v. David L. HANSEN.  CCA 88 5107.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the petition is dismissed as untimely filed.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0587/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. PROCTOR.  CCA 20030200.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 04-8023/AF.  Fernando T. TELLO, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent.  Petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 04-0461/AR.  U.S. v. Charles A. LEWIS, Jr.  CCA 20010162.  Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 04-0485/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel J. POINDEXTER.  CCA 20000594.  Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 04-0498/AF.  U.S. v. David C. KOVAL.  CCA S30463.  Appellant’s motion to submit documents granted.

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-183

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0581/AR.  U.S. v. Raymond RAINEY, Jr.  CCA 20021259.

No. 04-0582/AR.  U.S. v. Arthur J. WOODS, Jr.  CCA 20030607.

No. 04-0583/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon F. TARVER.  CCA 20030859.

No. 04-0584/AR.  U.S. v. Shawnne P. SMITH.  CCA 20031067.

No. 04-0585/AR.  U.S. v. Nicholas C. DREGHORN.  CCA 20031058.

No. 04-0586/MC.  U.S. v. Ryan P. SMITH.  CCA 200102227.

No. 04-5005/NA.  U.S. v. Todd R. FORBES.  CCA 9901454.

 

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-182

Friday, July 02, 2004


PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0580/AR.  U.S. v. James E. ROWLAND, Jr.  CCA 20030371.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 04-8024/NA.  United States, Respondent, v. Jeffrey G. TOOHEY, Petitioner.  CCA 200001621.  Notice is hereby given that a motion for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus was filed under Rule 27(a) on June 18, 2004, and placed on the docket this date.  On consideration thereof, the motion is hereby denied as moot. [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – FILINGS this date.]

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 04-8024/NA.  United States, Respondent, v. Jeffrey G. TOOHEY, Petitioner.  CCA 200001621.  [See also MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 04-181

Thursday, July 01, 2004

 
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 04-0578/AR.  U.S. v. Charles J. WOLFORD.  CCA 20001042.

No. 04-0579/CG.  U.S. v. Lewis A. GARCIA.  CCA 1195.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 03-0694/AR.  U.S. v. Darrell L. SHELTON.  CCA 9900816.  Appellant's motion to correct errata granted.

 

No. 04-0082/AF.  U.S. v. Shane T. SEIDER.  CCA 35154.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file an answer to Appellee's petition for reconsideration granted to July 14, 2004.

 

No. 04-0327/AR.  U.S. v. Anwar C. GEORGE.  CCA 20010884.  On consideration of Appellant's motion to file supplement to petition for grant of review out of time, and in light of United States v. Brunson, 59 M.J. 41 (C.A.A.F. 2003), said motion is granted.

 

Home Page |  Opinions & Digest  |  Daily Journal  |  Scheduled Hearings  |  Search Site