UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-022
Wednesday,
October 31, 2007
APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
No.
03-0389/NA.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No.
03-0389/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 08-0075/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-021
Tuesday,
October 30, 2007
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
07-0316/NA.
No.
07-0322/CG.
No.
07-0690/AF.
No.
07-0832/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-020
Monday,
October 29, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0596/AF.
No.
07-0621/AR.
No.
07-0708/NA.
No.
07-0730/AR.
No.
07-0820/AF.
No.
07-0838/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
04-0722/AF.
No.
08-0060/AR.
No.
08-0061/AR.
No.
08-0062/AR.
No.
08-0063/AF.
No.
08-0064/AF.
No.
08-0065/AF.
No.
08-0066/AF.
No.
08-0067/AF.
No.
08-0068/AF.
No.
08-0069/AF.
No.
08-0070/AF.
No.
08-0071/AF.
No.
08-0072/AF.
No.
08-0073/AF.
No.
08-0074/AF.
No.
98-0497/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
03-0389/NA.
No.
07-0597/AF.
No. 07-8021/AR.
Richard J. RAMSEY. v.
___________________
*
Second
petition filed in this case.
** Third
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-019
Friday,
October 26, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0059/AR.
No.
08-6001/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0908/NA.
No.
07-0544/AR.
No.
07-0880/AR.
No.
07-0882/AR.
No.
07-0894/MC.
No.
07-0895/AR.
No.
07-0897/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-018
Thursday,
October 25, 2007
HEARINGS
No.
07-0085/MC.
*
Oral argument
held at The Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington,
Indiana.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-017
Wednesday,
October 24, 2007
HEARINGS
No. 06-0934/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0660/AR.
No.
07-0707/AR.
No.
07-0782/AF.
No.
07-0802/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
06-0793/AF.
No.
08-0058/AR.
_____________________
* Oral argument
held at The Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis,
Indiana.
** Second petition
filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-016
Tuesday,
October 23, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0522/MC.
No.
07-0571/NA.
No.
07-0582/AR.
No.
07-0663/AR.
No.
07-0683/AF.
No.
07-0714/AR.
No.
07-0743/AF.
No.
07-0749/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No.
07-0878/AR.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
No.
07-0210/MC.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
07-0527/MC.
No.
07-0639/MC.
No.
07-0796/AF.
No.
07-0884/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-015
Monday,
October 22, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0046/AR.
No.
08-0047/AR.
No.
08-0048/AR.
No.
08-0049/AR.
No.
08-0050/AR.
No.
08-0051/AR.
No.
08-0052/AR.
No.
08-0053/AF.
No.
08-0054/AR.
No.
08-0055/MC.
No.
08-0056/MC.
No.
08-0057/NA.
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-014
Friday,
October 19, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0640/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0044/MC.
No.
08-0045/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-013
Thursday,
October 18, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0237/NA.
No.
07-0777/AR.
No.
07-0790/AF.
No.
07-0808/AF.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0043/AR.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
07-0237/NA.
No.
07-0519/AR.
No.
07-0640/NA.
No.
07-0793/AR.
No.
07-0809/MC.
No.
07-0854/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-012
Wednesday,
October 17, 2007
HEARINGS
No.
07-0173/AR.
No.
07-0194/AF.
No.
06-0870/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0041/AR.
No.
08-0042/AR.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-011
Tuesday,
October 16, 2007
HEARINGS
No. 07-0316/NA.
No. 06-0768/NA.
No. 07-0028/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No. 07-0518/MC.
No. 07-0632/AR.
No. 07-0684/AF.
No. 07-0705/AR.
No. 07-0773/AR.
No. 07-0798/AR.
No. 07-0815/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 08-0037/AR.
No. 08-0038/AR.
No. 08-0039/AR.
No. 08-0040/NA.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-010
Monday,
October 15, 2007
HEARINGS
No.
07-0188/AF.
No.
07-0105/NA.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0027/AR.
No.
08-0028/AR.
No.
08-0029/AR.
No.
08-0030/AR.
No.
08-0031/AF.
No.
08-0032/AF.
No.
08-0033/AF.
No.
08-0034/AF.
No.
08-0035/AF.
No.
08-0036/AF.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
02-0334/AR.
No.
03-0151/MC.
No.
07-0085/MC.
No.
07-0684/AF.
No.
07-0844/AR.
No.
07-0848/AF.
No.
07-0870.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-009
Friday,
October 12, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0026/MC.
UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-008
Thursday,
October 11, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No. 08-0025/AR.
SPECIAL DOCKET MATTERS
No.
07-17. In the Matter
of Barry W. BELLINO. It appearing
that the above-named attorney is a member of the Bar of this Court,
that he was
suspended from the practice of law in South Carolina, that, pursuant to
Rule 15(b),
Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the
Armed
Forces, said attorney was suspended from the practice of law before
this Court
and was directed to show cause by August 20, 2007, why he should not be
disbarred, that a copy of the Court’s Order was sent by certified mail
to his last
known address, that no response was submitted to the Court’s Order, and
considering the serious nature of his misconduct and his conviction by
general
court-martial, it is ordered that Barry W. Bellino is hereby disbarred
from the
practice of law before this Court effective this date.
No. 07-19. In the Matter of Audwin L.
JACKSON. It appearing that the
above-named attorney is a member of the Bar of this Court, that he was
suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Louisiana,
that,
pursuant to Rule 15(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States
Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces, said attorney was suspended from the
practice of
law before this Court and was directed to show cause by August 20,
2007, why he
should not be disbarred, that a copy of the Court’s Order was sent by
certified
mail to his last known address, that said certified mail was returned
marked
“unclaimed”, and considering the serious nature of his misconduct and
his
conviction by general court-martial, it is ordered that Audwin L.
Jackson is
hereby disbarred from the practice of law before this Court effective
this
date.
No.
07-21. In the Matter
of Mark W. LAPHAM. It appearing
that the above-named attorney is a member of the Bar of this Court,
that he was
suspended from the practice of law in California and Idaho, that,
pursuant to
Rule 15(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of
Appeals for
the Armed Forces, said attorney was suspended from the practice of law
before
this Court and was directed to show cause by August 20, 2007, why he
should not
be disbarred, that a copy of the Court’s Order was sent by certified
mail to
his last known address, that no response was submitted to the Court’s
Order,
and considering the serious nature of his misconduct and his conviction
by
general court-martial, it is ordered that Mark W. Lapham is hereby
disbarred
from the practice of law before this Court effective this date.
No.
07-23. In the Matter
of Kirk A. McDANIEL. It appearing
that the above-named attorney is a member of the Bar of this Court,
that he was
suspended from the practice of law in Pennsylvania, that, pursuant to
Rule
15(b), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals
for the
Armed Forces, said attorney was suspended from the practice of law
before this
Court and was directed to show cause by August 20, 2007, why he should
not be
disbarred, that a copy of the Court’s Order was sent by certified mail
to his
last known address, that said certified mail was returned marked
“unclaimed”,
and considering the serious nature of his misconduct and his conviction
by
general court-martial, it is ordered that Kirk A. McDaniel is hereby
disbarred
from the practice of law before this Court effective this date.*
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No.
07-8022/AR.
G. Jerome HURLEY, Appellant v. Lieutenant Colonel
John M. Head, Military Judge, and
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No. 07-0503/MC.
No. 07-0508/MC.
No. 07-0722/AR.
No. 07-0843/MC.
No. 07-0852/NA.
No. 07-0868/MC.
* Judge RYAN did
not participate in this
matter.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-007
Wednesday,
October 10, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0573/AR.
No.
07-0588/AR.
No.
07-0697/AR.
No.
07-0737/AF.
No.
07-0785/AR.
No.
07-0803/AR.
No.
07-0807/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0024/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS
Misc. No.
08-8001/CG. Thomas A. MORTON, Appellant
v. Captain Brian Judge, USCG, Military Judge and
_______________________
* It is
directed that the promulgating order be corrected by deleting the
duplication
of check number 0167 at the top of the second page.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-006
Tuesday,
October 9, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF
REVIEW FILED
No.
05-0528/MC.
No.
08-0011/AR.
No.
08-0012/AR.
No.
08-0013/AR.
No.
08-0014/AR.
No.
08-0015/AR.
No.
08-0016/AR.
No.
08-0017/AR.
No.
08-0018/AR.
No.
08-0019/AR.
No.
08-0020/AR.
No.
08-0021/AR.
No.
08-0022/AF.
No.
08-0023/NA.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
06-0934/NA.
No.
07-0555/AR.
________________________
* Second
petition filed in this case.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-005
Friday,
October 5, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0764/MC.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0009/NA.
No.
08-0010/AR.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
Misc. No.
07-8023/AR. Ehren K. WATADA, Appellant
v. Lieutenant Colonel John M. Head, Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby,
and
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-004
Thursday,
October 4, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0008/AR.
ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW
No. 07-6004/AR.
WHETHER
THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOVEMBER
2003
CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 43(b) OF THE UCMJ APPLIES
RETROACTIVELY TO OFFENSES
COMMITTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WERE NOT
TIME-BARRED
AS OF THAT DATE, BUT THAT WERE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE PREVIOUS STATUTE
OF
LIMITATIONS WHEN RECEIVED BY THE OFFICER EXERCISING SUMMARY
COURT-MARTIAL
JURISDICTION.
and the following
issue
specified by the Court:
WHETHER
AND HOW THIS COURT HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION
OVER
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS UNDER EITHER
ARTICLE 67(a)(2) OR (3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2), (3)
(2000),
FROM DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE 62,
UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. §
862 (2000), AND WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THIS COURT’S DECISION IN UNITED
STATES v. TUCKER, 20 M.J. 52, 53 (C.M.A. 1985), SHOULD BE
OVERTURNED.
Appellant
and Appellee shall file briefs under Rule 25 on the specified issue no
later
than October 19, 2007. Reply briefs
shall be filed no later than 5 days after the filing of the opposing
party’s
brief.
The
government and defense appellate divisions of the Air Force and the
Coast Guard
are invited to file amicus curiae briefs on the specified issue under
Rule 26
no later than October 19, 2007.
Requests
for enlargements of time will not be granted in the absence of
extraordinary
circumstances.
The
above-entitled action shall be called for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on the 14th
day of November, 2007. Each side will be
allotted 30 minutes to present oral argument.
The hearing will cover both the assigned and specified issues.
No. 07-6005/NA.
WHETHER
THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY LIMITED
THIS
COURT’S HOLDING IN UNITED STATES v. CONKLIN, 63 M.J. 333
(C.A.A.F.
2006), BY FINDING THAT “IT APPEARS THE MILITARY JUDGE APPLIED AN
ERRONEOUS
STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS” IN SUPPRESSING THE SEARCH OF APPELLANT’S
LAPTOP
COMPUTER.
and the following
issue
specified by the Court:
WHETHER
AND HOW THIS COURT HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION
OVER
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS UNDER EITHER ARTICLE 67(a)(2)
OR
(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §
867(a)(2),
(3)
(2000), FROM DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE
62,
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §
862 (2000), AND WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THIS COURT’S DECISION IN UNITED
STATES v. TUCKER, 20 M.J. 52, 53 (C.M.A. 1985), SHOULD BE
OVERTURNED.
Appellant
and Appellee shall file briefs under Rule 25 on the specified issue no
later
than October 19, 2007. Reply briefs
shall be filed no later than 5 days after the filing of the opposing
party’s
brief.
The
government and defense appellate divisions of the Air Force and the
Coast Guard
are invited to file amicus curiae briefs on the specified issue under
Rule 26
no later than October 19, 2007.
Requests
for enlargements of time will not be granted in the absence of
extraordinary
circumstances.
The
above-entitled action will be called for hearing on the 14th
day of
November, 2007. This hearing will
commence immediately following the hearing in United States v.
Lopez de
Victoria, 07-6004/AR. Each side will
be allotted 30 minutes to present oral argument. The
hearing will cover both the assigned and
specified issues.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
No.
07-0020/AR.
No.
07-0114/AR.
No.
07-0519/AR.
No.
07-0610/NA.
No.
07-0828/AR.
No.
07-0832/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-003
Wednesday,
October 3, 2007
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED
No.
07-0631/AR.
No.
07-0741/AF.
No.
07-0767/AF.
No.
07-0779/AF.
No.
07-0816/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-002
Tuesday,
October 02, 2007
HEARINGS
No.
07-0079/AR.
No.
07-0286/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS
No. 07-0302/MC.
RYAN, Judge, with
whom ERDMANN, Judge, joins
(dissenting):
I do not agree
with the Court’s characterization of
the record. Appellant’s Rule for
Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 706 boards were conducted to ensure that he was
competent to stand trial. Appellant’s
mental responsibility at the time of the offenses was never in question
and, to
the extent it was reviewed in the course of the R.C.M. 706 boards, the
record
reflects that, as the Court of Criminal Appeals noted, and contrary to
the per
curiam Order’s suggestion, the second board concluded “that (1) the
appellant
did not suffer from a major mood or thought disorder at the time of the
offenses; (2) that he had the capacity ‘to understand the nature of his
actions
at the time of the offenses . . . .’” United
States v. Mancillas, NMCCA No. 200401950, 2006 CCA LEXIS 339, at
*3, 2006
WL 4573010, at *1 (N-M.
Prior to entering
and accepting Appellant’s guilty
plea, the defense counsel, the government, and the military judge
undertook
exhaustive efforts to ensure he was competent to stand trial. The record supports the conclusions that
Appellant was competent at the time of trial, that he understood the
nature of
the offenses for which he was charged, and that he knew they were wrong
when he
undertook them. Mental responsibility
was not at issue, nothing in the plea colloquy raised a mental
responsibility
defense, and it is not at all clear why the record can be undermined
even in
theory by a post hoc R.C.M. 706 board conducted several years later. Consequently, I am not persuaded that a
fourth sanity board conducted forty-one months after trial merits
further
consideration by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
I dissent.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0007/AR.
UNITED
STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY
JOURNAL
No.
08-001
Monday,
October 1, 2007
HEARINGS
No.
07-8012/NA.
No.
07-0096/AR.
PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED
No.
08-0001/AF.
No.
08-0002/AF.
No.
08-0003/AR.
No.
08-0004/AR.
No.
08-0005/AR.
No.
08-0006/AR.