UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-041

Friday, October 30, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0103/AF.  U.S. v. Richard W. VOGLER.  CCA 37231.

No. 10-0104/AR.  U.S. v. Francis H. PARKER.  CCA 20080579.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 10-0092/AR.  U.S. v. Sean G. MARKIS.  CCA 20070580.  Appellant's motion to amend the certificate of filing and service granted.

 

No. 10-6001/MC.  U.S. v. Frank D. WUTERICH.  CCA 200800183.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a brief and the joint appendix, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted, and that Appellant’s brief and the joint appendix will be filed no later than 14 days after this Court enters an order on Appellant’s motion to summarily dismiss the certificate for review.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-040

Thursday, October 29, 2009

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 09-0441/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua C. BLAZIER.  CCA 36988.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), APPELLANT WAS DENIED MEANINGFUL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES IN VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE DID NOT COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE ESSENTIAL BROOKS LAB OFFICIALS WHO HANDLED APPELLANT'S URINE SAMPLES AND INSTEAD ALLOWED THE EXPERT TOXICOLOGIST TO TESTIFY TO NON-ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY. SEE MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS, 557 U.S. ___, 127 S. CT. 2527 (2009).

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 09-0660/AF.  U.S. v. Moises GARCIA-VARELA.  CCA S31466.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

I.   WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS, 557 U.S. ___, 129 S. CT. 2527 (2009), APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM WHERE THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE CONSISTED OF APPELLANT'S POSITIVE URINALYSIS.

 

II.  WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL'S STATEMENT THAT HE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF THE DRUG LABORATORY REPORT AT TRIAL WAIVED OR FORFEITED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ISSUE, AND, IF FORFEITED, WHETHER ADMISSION OF THE REPORT CONSTITUTED PLAIN ERROR.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0693/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth A. ZEPEDA.  CCA 20080129.

 

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 10-0097/AR.  U.S. v. Sean D. SMITH.  CCA 20090091.  On further consideration of the petition for grant of review filed by the appellant on October 27, 2009, under Rule 19(a)(4), Rules of Practice and Procedure, and docketed under Docket Number 10-0097/AR, it appears that said petition is in fact a duplicate petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and was filed earlier under Docket Number 10-0085/AR.  Therefore, it is ordered that Docket Number 10-0085/AR be used on all future documents filed in this case, and that Docket Number 10-0097/AR be rescinded and not be assigned to any other case.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0100/AR.  U.S. v. Robert T. NUCKLES III.  CCA 20090264.

No. 10-0101/AR.  U.S. v. Eric U. DURAN.  CCA 20090188.

No. 10-0102/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua J. CLARK.  CCA 20090063.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0719/CG.  U.S. v. Webster M. SMITH.  CCA 1275.  On consideration of Appellee’s motions for leave to file a response to September 15, 2009, Interlocutory Order Under Seal, to file motion to close oral arguments under seal, and to close oral arguments, it is ordered that said motions are hereby denied, that pages 45-68 and 71-87 of the Joint Appendix (filed April 10, 2009) are hereby stricken from the Joint Appendix, and that the remainder of said Joint Appendix and the briefs are hereby unsealed.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-039

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 08-0596/AF.  U.S. v. Jesse I. RANNEY.  CCA S31046.  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, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.[See also ORDRERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 09-0581/AF.  U.S. v. Devery L. TAYLOR.  CCA 37065.  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, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.[See also ORDRERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No.09-5003/AF.  U.S., Appellant v. Brandon T. ROSE, Appellee.  CCA 36508.  In accordance with his pleas, Appellee was convicted at a general court-martial of one specification each of attempted larceny, violation of a lawful order, drunk driving, forgery, housebreaking, and obstructing justice, eleven specifications of larceny, and three specifications of indecent assault, in violation of Articles 80, 92, 111, 123, 130, 121, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 892, 911, 923, 930, 921, and 934 (2000), respectively.  The adjudged and approved sentence included a dishonorable discharge and confinement for twenty months.  The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the three specifications of indecent assault after resolving the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Appellee’s favor, set aside the sentence, and authorized a rehearing on the indecent assault findings and the sentence.  United States v. Rose, 67 M.J. 630, 638 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2009).  The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force certified two issues for review by this Court:

 

I.  WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE UNITED STATES’ REQUEST THAT THE COURT ORDER AN AFFIDAVIT FROM APPELLEE’S ORIGINAL MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL.

 

II. WHETHER AN “IMPRESSION” LEFT BY CIVILIAN DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT APPELLEE MAY NOT HAVE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER AMOUNTED TO AN AFFIRMATIVE MISREPRESENTATION AND LED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

 

We conclude that the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in denying the Government’s request that the lower court order an affidavit from Appellee’s original military defense counsel.  We remand to the lower court to reconsider Issue II after receiving this affidavit.

 

“It is black-letter law that a military accused has a privilege to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of his confidential communications to his attorney.”  United States v. Mays, 33 M.J. 455, 458 (C.M.A. 1991); Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 502.  However, the attorney-client privilege provided in M.R.E. 502 does not extend to “a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to the client.”  M.R.E. 502(d)(3).  Thus, “this privilege is limited, particularly where the servicemember claims his attorney breached his duty to provide effective assistance of counsel.”  Mays, 33 M.J. at 458.

 

A servicemember therefore waives his attorney-client privilege by claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.  As the effectiveness of counsel is “‘measured by the combined efforts of the defense team as a whole,’” an ineffective assistance of counsel claim waives privilege with respect to counsel generally, and not just that counsel against whom the claim is levied.  United States v. McConnell, 55 M.J. 479, 481 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (quoting United States v. Boone, 42 M.J. 308, 313 (C.A.A.F. 1995)).  Further, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim waives all “‘matters reasonably related to that’” claim.  United States v. Lewis, 42 M.J. 1, 5 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (citation omitted).  However, to protect against the disclosure of privileged communications, or those communications not reasonably related to a claim of ineffectiveness, counsel may present questions of application to a military judge for a relatedness determination, and, if necessary, direction prior to disclosing information.  Id. at 6.

 

In this case, Mr. Connors, as civilian defense counsel, and Capt George, as assistant military defense counsel, represented Appellee during the Article 32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832 (2006), investigation.  On July 28, 2005, Appellee released Capt George from representation and Capt Logan was detailed to Appellee as new assistant defense counsel.1  This replacement occurred before Appellee offered to enter into a pretrial agreement and before the court-martial convened.  Nonetheless, Capt George represented Appellee during pretrial proceedings.  The military judge at the hearing conducted pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967) (DuBay hearing), found that “[s]ex offender registration was a key concern for [Appellee] in regards to the indecent assault specifications.”  However, the DuBay military judge declined to hear any testimony regarding Capt George on the grounds that:

 

[T]his [DuBay] hearing is limited to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial defense counsel.  The court doesn’t see it as an issue that is extending to this prior [assistant defense counsel (ADC)] that was released before trial.  Given that Airman Rose does not wish to waive privilege in regards to his prior ADC, as the court sees it, this court has no authority to pursue any testimony or information from this prior ADC.

 

We disagree with the DuBay military judge’s conclusion.  Capt George’s representation of Appellee relates to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in at least three ways.  First, if sex offender registration was a central concern to Appellee, one might reasonably anticipate that the matter was raised with Appellee’s original assistant military defense counsel.  Second, whether registration was raised, how it was raised, and in what manner Appellee was advised about registration, if at all, might better establish the full context of Mr. Connors’s advice (or lack of advice) and the context in which Appellee responded to the military judge’s questions regarding the performance of counsel during the plea colloquy.  Third, any preliminary discussion of sex offender registration could also inform the lower court’s judgment with respect to the application of the prejudice prong in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).  See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985) (“[T]o satisfy the ‘prejudice’ requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”).

 

Appellee emphasizes that Capt George was not a member of the trial defense team at the point in the court-martial proceedings at which Appellee alleges that Mr. Connors engaged in ineffective assistance of counsel.  Thus, according to Appellee, requiring submission of an affidavit from Capt George in this case could open the floodgates to allow affidavits on ineffective assistance of counsel claims from everyone involved in the case.  However, substantive and procedural safeguards protect against this concern.  First, only that information reasonably related to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims is subject to disclosure.  Second, such disclosure need not be automatic in the absence of waiver, but rather is subject to review and supervision by a court.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside and the case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the lower court to obtain an affidavit from Appellee’s original assistant military defense counsel.  The lower court shall then conduct a new review of Issue II under Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2006).  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2006), shall apply.

 

EFFRON, Chief Judge, with whom ERDMANN, Judge, joins (dissenting):


The Government had an opportunity at a court-ordered factfinding hearing to move for production of an affidavit from Appellee’s original defense counsel.  The Government failed to file such a motion.  The majority now would provide the Government with a belated opportunity to engage in additional factfinding.  For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully dissent.

 

During the initial review of this case at the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Appellee contended that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at his court-martial in response to his inquiries concerning the relationship between a guilty plea and sex offender registration.  The court determined that it could not resolve Appellee’s claim without a post-trial hearing to examine what advice Appellee received regarding sex offender registration.  United States v. Rose, No. ACM 36508, slip op. at 1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 7, 2007) (DuBay order).  The court ordered a hearing under United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), instructing a military judge to hear testimony and examine evidence to resolve outstanding issues of fact.

 

At the DuBay hearing, the military judge raised the issue of whether Appellee’s first defense counsel, Captain (Capt) George, would testify.  She noted that Appellee had not waived the attorney-client privilege, see Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 502, and stated that in view of the privilege, Capt George would not testify at the DuBay hearing.  The Government had filed no motion requesting the appearance of Capt George, and it filed no brief or memorandum of law on the subject of privilege.  The only explanation for the military judge’s privilege inquiry appears in her findings, which note that before the hearing, the Government “expressed a desire to explore” whether Capt George advised Appellee regarding sex offender registration.  United States v. Rose, No. ACM 36508, slip op. at 1 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2008) (setting out findings following DuBay hearing) [hereinafter DuBay Findings].  The record does not reveal when or in what manner the Government expressed this desire, and there is no motion on the record.

 

 After determining that Capt George would not testify, the DuBay judge invited trial counsel to share “any comments or anything you’d like to add on that issue” of privilege.  Trial counsel replied “No, Your Honor,” raising no objection to the DuBay judge’s ruling.


   Following the hearing, the DuBay judge returned Appellant’s case to the Court of Criminal Appeals, describing her treatment of privilege in the findings.  DuBay Findings at 1.  During the seven months between the DuBay hearing and oral argument at the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Government filed two briefs with the court, neither of which raised any objection to the DuBay judge’s treatment of privilege or otherwise asserted a need for testimony from Capt George.  See Answer of Appellee, United States v. Rose, No. ACM 36508 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 28, 2008); Answer of Appellee to Specified Issue, United States v. Rose, No. ACM 36508 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. July 21, 2008).  The Government first raised the subject of Capt George’s testimony one week after oral argument at the Court of Criminal Appeals when it filed a motion to order an affidavit from Capt George.  Motion of Appellee, United States v. Rose, No. ACM 36508 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 3, 2008).  The court denied the Government’s motion -- a decision the Government later certified on appeal to this Court.

 

The Court of Criminal Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Government’s motion for an affidavit from Capt George.  The DuBay procedure exists to provide a forum for investigating and resolving post-trial factual disputes.  See United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236, 243-44 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (discussing the value of DuBay hearings in light of limited appellate factfinding capabilities).  The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a DuBay hearing in this case to determine what advice Appellee received from his attorneys.  See United States v. Baker, 58 M.J. 380, 387 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (ordering DuBay hearing to review questions of fact surrounding ineffective assistance of counsel claim).  If the Government believed it was necessary to have the testimony of Capt George to amplify the factual record, the proper time to make a motion and litigate the issue of privilege was at the DuBay hearing, not following the oral argument in the subsequent appeal.  The DuBay hearing presented the Government with an opportunity to litigate Capt George’s role in this dispute.  The Government relinquished this opportunity.  The Court of Criminal Appeals was not obligated to allow the Government to expand the post-trial factual record seven months later.  Under these circumstances, I respectfully dissent.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 08-0596/AF.  U.S. v. Jesse I. RANNEY.  CCA S31046.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 09-0581/AF.  U.S. v. Devery L. TAYLOR.  CCA 37065.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 09-0589/AR.  U.S. v. Robert C. HUNTZINGER.  CCA 20060976.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT NO SOLDIER AT FORWARD OPERATING BASE (FOB) LOYALTY HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN ANY REGARD.

 

II.  WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING A MOTION TO SUPPRESS APPELLANT'S EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE AND PASSWORD PROTECTED LAPTOP WHEN THE COMMANDER WHO ORDERED THE SEIZURE OF THE EQUIPMENT IMMEDIATELY SEARCHED THE EQUIPMENT UPON SEIZURE, DEMONSTRATING THAT HE WAS PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS AND WAS NOT NEUTRAL AND DETACHED WHEN SEIZING THE ITEMS.

 

III. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF INEVITABLE DISCOVERY IS APPLICABLE WHEN THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT POLICE ACTIVITIES, OR TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE POLICE PRACTICES, THAT WOULD HAVE INEVITABLY RESULTED IN DISCOVERY, AND NO OTHER EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES.

 

IV.  WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED TO SUPPORT THE SEARCH AUTHORIZATION OF APPELLANT'S LAPTOP COMPUTER AND DETACHABLE HARD DRIVE.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 10-0030/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher J. ROBERTS.  CCA 36905.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM WAS HARMLESS ERROR WHEN THE JUDGE PROHIBITED APPELLANT FROM DEMONSTRATING THAT HIS WIFE, THE ALLEGED RAPE VICTIM, HAD A MOTIVE TO FABRICATE THE ISSUE OF CONSENT BASED ON HER EXTRAMARITAL ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP THAT GAVE HER AN INCENTIVE TO EITHER GET APPELLANT OUT OF THE PICTURE OR PROTECT HER EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIP.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0681/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan B. MCDANIEL.  CCA 20080645.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0441/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua C. BLAZIER.  CCA 36988.  Appellant's motion to attach documents in support of the supplement to the petition for grant of review and Appellee’s motion to submit documents are granted and considering all of the matters submitted in response to the show cause order, this Court finds said petition timely filed.

 

No. 10-0098/AR. U.S. v, William A. KING, CCA 2008049.  Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review, said petition is hereby granted, up to and including November 12, 2009.

_____________________

1  Both Capt George and Capt Logan have since separated from military service.


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-038

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0097/AR.  U.S. v. Sean D. SMITH.  CCA 20090091.

No. 10-0098/AR.  U.S. v. William A. KING.  CCA 20080499.

No. 10-0099/AR.  U.S. v. Derrick R. HOLSTON, Jr.  CCA 20090148.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0738/NA.  U.S. v. Dennis A. THOMAS.  CCA 200700858.  Appellee's motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review for lack of jurisdiction is denied.

 

No. 09-0376/AF.  U.S. v. James A. COWGILL.  CCA S31404.  Appellee's motion to submit a corrected brief granted.

 

No. 09-0535/NA.  U.S. v. Matthew M. DIAZ.  CCA 200700970.  Appellee's motion to extend time to file a brief granted, up to and including December 4, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 10-0095/AR.  U.S. v. Mikel H. Martin, Jr.  CCA 20090075.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including November 9, 2009.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-037

Monday, October 26, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0599/AF.  U.S. v. Jezreel D. IVY.  CCA S31406.

No. 09-0699/AF.  U.S. v. Michael BAILON.  CCA 36912.

No. 09-0714/AR.  U.S. v. Justin A. VOSICKY.  CCA 20070874.

No. 09-0788/AR.  U.S. v. Michael L. MANGRUM.  CCA 20070584.

No. 10-0004/AR.  U.S. v. Endia L. GARNER.  CCA 20090106.

No. 10-0059/AF.  U.S. v. Alfredo TREVINO.  CCA S31599.

No. 10-0061/AF.  U.S. v. Kevin T. LOUDER.  CCA S31579.

No. 10-0070/AF.  U.S. v. Zachary S. STEVENSON.  CCA S31611.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0095/AR.  U.S. v. Mikel H. MARTIN, Jr.  CCA 20090075.

No. 10-0096/AR.  U.S. v. Timmy W. SKINNER.  CCA 20090344.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-036

Friday, October 23, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0094/MC.  U.S. v. Wendell J. CARLISLE.  CCA 200800815.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-035

Thursday, October 22, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0616/AR.  U.S. v. Lamont K. GOODWIN.  CCA 20080816.

No. 09-0618/CG.  U.S. v. Amanda S. GOGO.  CCA 1292.

No. 09-0757/NA.  U.S. v. Michael L. HICKS.  CCA 200800471.

No. 09-0769/AF.  U.S. v. Perry  M. DOIG.  CCA S31527.

No. 09-0798/AR.  U.S. v. Jacob C. RAINES.  CCA 20090055.

No. 09-0802/AF.  U.S. v. Korey A. BYARD.  CCA S31566.

No. 09-0807/AR.  U.S. v. Lance G. ROBINSON.  CCA 20090316.

No. 09-0815/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon R. GRUNDY.  CCA 37374.

No. 10-0017/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher L. CAMPBELL.  CCA 20080719.

No. 10-0019/AF.  U.S. v. Jeremy A. GRINER.  CCA S31581.

No. 10-0022/AR.  U.S. v. Rufus Z. WHITE.  CCA 20080721.

No. 10-0055/AF.  U.S. v. Eric S. PICKHINKE.  CCA S31606.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0092/AR.  U.S. v. Sean G. MARKIS.  CCA 20070580.

No. 10-0093/AR.  U.S. v. John C. LARSEN.  CCA 20090239.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0581/AF.  U.S. v. Devery L. TAYLOR.  CCA 37065.  Appellant's motion to attach document granted.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-034

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 07-0870/AF.  U.S. v. Charles S. ROACH.  CCA S31143.  Review granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO VACATE ITS RULING IN LIGHT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE CHIEF JUDGE REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF HIS REPLACEMENT AFTER HE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF.

 

II.  WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY BASING ITS SENTENCE DISPARITY ANALYSIS ON APPELLANT'S AND HIS CO-ACTOR'S ADJUDGED SENTENCES RATHER THAN THEIR APPROVED SENTENCES.

 

III. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF E-MAILS SENT BETWEEN THE CHIEF JUDGE AND APPELLATE GOVERNMENT COUNSEL ABOUT THIS CASE FOLLOWING THE CHIEF JUDGE'S RECUSAL.

 

IV.  WHETHER APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO REASONABLY PROMPT APPELLATE REVIEW WAS DENIED BY THE DELAY IN THIS APPEAL ARISING FROM THE AIR FORCE COURT'S PROCESSING OF THIS APPEAL DURING ITS INITIAL REVIEW.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

No. 10-0020/AF.  U.S. v. Andrew J. FERGUSON.  CCA 37272.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER APPELLANT'S PLEA TO INDECENT EXPOSURE WAS PROVIDENT.

 

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0513/AF.  U.S. v. Sardarius J. PUGH.  CCA 37038.

No. 09-0544/AR.  U.S. v. Reginald M. MCLESTER.  CCA 20070415.

No. 10-0037/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew J. HAZEL.  CCA 20090041.

No. 10-0044/AR.  U.S. v. Billy R. ROBERTS.  CCA 20090204.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0091/AR.  U.S. v. Robert B. HILLEY.  CCA 20080176.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0719/CG.  U.S. v. Webster M. SMITH.  CCA 1275.  Motion filed by Daniel S. Volchok Esq., for leave to withdraw the appearances of Stuart Delery, Esq., and Will Crossley, Esq., is granted.

 

No. 09-0429/MC.  U.S. v. Jason M. BAGSTAD.  CCA 200602454.  Appellant's motion for leave to file a reply brief out of time granted.

 

No. 09-0618/CG.  U.S. v. Amanda S. GOGO.  CCA 1292.  Appellant's motion to attach affidavit of Appellant granted.

 

No. 09-0801/AR.  U.S. v. Charles A. HORN.  CCA 20050373.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review and motion to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time, it is ordered that said motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is hereby granted, and said motion to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time is hereby denied as moot.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-033

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0659/AF.  U.S. v. Terrance L. ANDERSON.  CCA 37157.

No. 09-0679/AR.  U.S. v. Corey R. CLAGETT.  CCA 20070082.

No. 09-0711/AR.  U.S. v. Belmor G. RAMOS.  CCA 20080837.

No. 09-0785/AR.  U.S. v. Anela T. CLAIBORNE.  CCA 20090156.

No. 09-0812/AF.  U.S. v. Robert S. ADAMSON.  CCA S31568.

No. 09-0816/AF.  U.S. v. Patrick J. SANCHEZ.  CCA 37442.

No. 10-0038/AR.  U.S. v. George HINOJOSA.  CCA 20090240.

No. 10-0045/AR.  U.S. v. Brian A. ZOELLER.  CCA 20081063.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 08-0779/AR.  U.S. v. Bradley W. MARSHALL.  CCA 20060229.*

No. 10-0088/AR.  U.S. v. Leon M. HARRIS.  CCA 20090451.

No. 10-0089/AR.  U.S. v. Brentley K. GRAVES.  CCA 20080720.

No. 10-0090/AR.  U.S. v. Gene S. MARR.  CCA 20090217.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0342/AF.  U.S. v. Timeka B. JOHNSON.  CCA S31417.  Appellant's motion to attach documents granted.  This Court finds that the petition was timely filed.

 

No. 09-0429/MC.  U.S. v. Jason M. BAGSTAD.  CCA 200602454.  On consideration of the motion filed by the National Institute of Military Justice to submit a brief as Amicus Curiae and to participate in oral argument, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted as it pertains to submitting a brief as Amicus Curiae, and is hereby denied as it pertains to participating in oral argument.

 

No. 09-0621/AR.  U.S. v. Fermin NUNEZ.  CCA 20061021.  Appellee's motion for leave to file the answer to the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 09-0692/NA.  U.S. v. Jacob L. IMLER.  CCA 200800650.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review denied without prejudice. Appellant may resubmit a motion that complies with Rule 33, Rules of Practice and Procedure. 

 

No. 10-0082/MC.  U.S. v. Trent D. THOMAS.  CCA 20080327.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including November 5, 2009.

 

No. 10-0087/AR.  U.S. v. Seth Y. ADOMAKO-ADJEI.  CCA 20071428.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including November 6, 2009.

________________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-032

Monday, October 19, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0583/AF.  U.S. v. Jason E. NEAL.  CCA 37195.

No. 09-0718/AR.  U.S. v. Kerry L. LOCKHART.  CCA 20070689.

No. 09-0721/AR.  U.S. v. David J. ROMINGER.  CCA 20080423.

No. 09-0722/AF.  U.S. v. David C. STRIGLIO.  CCA 37343.

No. 09-0725/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew S. BROWN.  CCA 20081044.

No. 09-0732/AR.  U.S. v. Jonathan C. SMITH.  CCA 20081162.

No. 09-0735/AR.  U.S. v. Andrew D. LEACH.  CCA 20080878.

No. 09-0749/AR.  U.S. v. Quinton D. GOODMAN.  CCA 20081122.

No. 09-0766/AF.  U.S. v. Jewel B. SMITH.  CCA S31609.

No. 09-0797/AF.  U.S. v. Shawn M. MORRIS.  CCA 37252.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0083/AF.  U.S. v. Blair S. HOWARD, Jr.  CCA 37191.

No. 10-0084/AF.  U.S. v. William C. DEROSIER.  CCA 37285.

No. 10-0085/AR.  U.S. v. Sean D. SMITH.  CCA 20090091.

No. 10-0086/AR.  U.S. v. John T. MORROW.  CCA 20080087.

No. 10-0087/AR.  U.S. v. Seth Y. ADOMAKO-ADJEI.  CCA 20071428.

 

SPECIAL DOCKET MATTERS

 

No. 07-29.  In the Matter of Lloyd F. UKWU.  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 and later disbarred by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 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 October 1, 2009, why he should not be disbarred, that no response has been received to the Show Cause Order, and considering the serious nature of his misconduct, it is ordered that Lloyd F. Ukwu is hereby disbarred from the practice of law before this Court effective this date.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-031

Friday, October 16, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0081/AF.  U.S. v. Vincent L. WILLIAMS.  CCA 36996.

No. 10-0082/MC.  U.S. v. Trent D. THOMAS.  CCA 20080327.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-030

Thursday, October 15, 2009

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 07-0553/NA.  U.S. v. Christopher A. BOLSINS.  CCA 200602408.  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, and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 07-0553/NA.  U.S. v. Christopher A. BOLSINS.  CCA 200602408.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0079/AR.  U.S. v. Valentin RODRIQUEZ.  CCA 20080801.

No. 10-0080/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan J. CRANE.  CCA 20080469.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 10-8004/AR.  Gerson M. BOLANOS-MENDOZA, Appellant v. United States, Appellee.  CCA 20090531.  Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b).

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 10-0080/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan J. CRANE.  CCA 20080469.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including November 4, 2009.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-029

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 08-0804/AR.  U.S. v. Sabrina D. HARMAN.  CCA 20050597.

No. 09-0466/AF.  U.S. v. Adam D. DOUGLAS.  CCA S31059.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 10-0016/AF.  U.S. v. David L. OSENG.  CCA S31643.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 08-0651/AR.  U.S. v. Melanie A. MCPHERSON.  CCA 20070115.*

No. 10-0074/AR.  U.S. v. Samuel J. PERRY.  CCA 20071338.

No. 10-0075/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua D. BURNS.  CCA 20090505.

No. 10-0076/AR.  U.S. v. Robert J. AULTMAN.  CCA 20090169.

No. 10-0077/AR.  U.S. v. Raymond D. LILLEY.  CCA 20090233.

No. 10-0078/AR.  U.S. v. Mark R. LEE.  CCA 20081056.

 

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 10-8001/AR.  Penny F. JOHNSON, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent.  On consideration of Petitioner’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s order issued September 16, 2009, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0580/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon I. MILLER.  CCA 20060224.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 30, 2009.

 

No. 09-0805/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua A. GLOVER.  CCA 20080507.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 27, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 09-0806/AR.  U.S. v. Wedzell ESCOTT-HOLMES.  CCA 20081011.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 27, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 10-0009/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel J. JOHANNESSON.  CCA 20070131.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 27, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 10-0036/MC.  U.S. v. Jason D. WHITE.  CCA 200900183.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 28, 2009, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 10-0066/AR.  U.S. v. Brittany L. BANKS-ABRAM.  CCA 20080398.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 20, 2009.

 

No. 10-0068/AR.  U.S. v. Edward J. SMART.  CCA 20081065.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including November 2, 2009.

 

No. 10-0078/AR.  U.S. v. Mark R. LEE.  CCA 20081056.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including November 2, 2009.

 

No. 10-6001/MC.  Frank D. WUTERICH, Appellant v. United States, Appellee and CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Non-Party Appellee.  CCA 200800183.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief, Appellee’s motion to suspend Rule 19(b)(1), and Appellee’s motion to establish an alternate briefing and argument schedule (to which Appellant and Non-Party Appellee CBS Broadcasting, Inc., have consented), it is ordered that Appellee’s motions to suspend Rule 19(b)(1) and to establish an alternate briefing and argument schedule are hereby granted as follows: Appellant will file a brief on the certified issues within 21 days of the date of this order.  Non-Party Appellee CBS Broadcasting, Inc., will file a brief on the certified issues within 21 days of the date of this order.  Appellee will file a brief on the certified issues within 21 days of the date of filing of Appellant’s brief, and Appellant may file a reply to Appellee’s brief within 14 days of the date of the filing of Appellee’s brief.  The above-entitled action is hereby called for a hearing on the certified issues at 9:30 a.m. on the 11th day of January, 2010.  Each side and the Non-Party Appellee will be allotted 20 minutes to present oral argument.  Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is hereby denied as moot.

___________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-028

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

 

HEARINGS


No. 09-0073/AR.  U.S. v. Rogelio M. MAYNULET.  CCA 20050412.

No. 08-0339/AF.  U.S. v. Derrick M. WILLIAMS.  CCA 36679.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0674/AR.  U.S. v. William Z. HILLESTAD.  CCA 20081033.

No. 09-0696/AR.  U.S. v. Michael A. MCQUOWN.  CCA 20081078.

No. 09-0708/AF.  U.S. v. Adam J. WHITE.  CCA S31510.

No. 09-0710/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher W. MORGAN.  CCA 20080948.

No. 09-0752/AR.  U.S. v. Shane A. TRUMBLE.  CCA 20081155.

No. 09-0762/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan G. BARROWS.  CCA 20081137.

No. 09-0770/AR.  U.S. v. William D. CONGER.  CCA 20090304.

No. 09-0782/AF.  U.S. v. Patrick R. BLAIR.  CCA S31569.

No. 09-0799/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel S. PAULSEN.  CCA 20090095.

No. 09-0809/AR.  U.S. v. Larry V. HOLLOWAY III.  CCA 20090212.

No. 10-0043/AR.  U.S. v. Johnathan N. WILKE.  CCA 20090187.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0071/AR.  U.S. v. Edward L. LEITCH.  CCA 20090340.

No. 10-0072/AF.  U.S. v. Andrew C. SCHNEIDT.  CCA S31509.

No. 10-0073/AR.  U.S. v. Christopher D. LAWRENCE.  CCA 20090093.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 07-0553/NA.  U.S. v. Christopher A. BOLSINS.  CCA 200602408.  On consideration of Appellee's motions to dismiss the petition for grant of review for lack of jurisdiction and for leave to file a reply out of time to Appellant’s answer to the motion to dismiss, it is ordered that said motion for leave to file a reply out of time to Appellant’s answer is hereby granted, and said motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied.

 

No. 09-0681/AR.  U.S. v. Ryan B. MCDANIEL.  CCA 20080645.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-027

Friday, October 9, 2009

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 08-0417/AR.  U.S. v. Robert B. CLAYTON.  CCA 20040903.  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, 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. 08-0417/AR.  U.S. v. Robert B. CLAYTON.  CCA 20040903.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0630/AR.  U.S. v. Kendall M. AMAZAKI, Jr.  CCA 20070676.

No. 09-0662/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua E. MCCOWEN.  CCA 37189.

No. 09-0673/AR.  U.S. v. James L. BOLTON.  CCA 20080830.

No. 09-0748/AR.  U.S. v. Sergio S. FARIAS.  CCA 20090043.

No. 09-0774/AR.  U.S. v. Jahnell C. LEE.  CCA 20090049.

No. 09-0792/AF.  U.S. v. Aaron A. ARNOLD.  CCA S31571.

No. 09-0796/AR.  U.S. v. Engelbert F. INDO.  CCA 20080601.

No. 09-0825/AR.  U.S. v. Bryan P. DONNAN.  CCA 20090202.

No. 10-0012/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher A. BURGESS.  CCA 37263.

No. 10-0031/AF.  U.S. v. William F. KELLY.  CCA S31567.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 08-0580/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon I. MILLER.  CCA 20060224.*

No. 10-0065/AF.  U.S. v. Landon P. DICK.  CCA 37369.

No. 10-0066/AR.  U.S. v. Brittany L. BANKS-ABRAM.  CCA 20080398.

No. 10-0067/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy T. LIVINGSTON.  CCA S31533.

No. 10-0068/AR.  U.S. v. Edward J. SMART.  CCA 20081065.

No. 10-0069/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher J. MILES.  CCA S31574.

No. 10-0070/AF.  U.S. v. Zachary S. STEVENSON.  CCA S31611.

_____________________

 

* Second petition filed in this case.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-026

Thursday, October 8, 2009

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 09-0169/AR.  U.S. v. Michael J. SMITH.  CCA 20060541.

No. 08-0757/AR.  U.S. v. Jerry J. EDIGER.  CCA 20060275.

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 09-0642/AF.  U.S. v. Brenton MCDANIEL.  CCA 36649.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Appellant asserts, without contradiction by Appellee, that he was not permitted an appropriate opportunity to submit assignments of error to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals before that court decided his case.  See United States v. Roach, 66 M.J. 410 (C.A.A.F. 2008).  Accordingly, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

 

I.   WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE POST-TRIAL PROCESSING TIME OF 560 DAYS WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

II.  WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED PLENARY REVIEW WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL WHEN THE AFCCA REVIEWED AND AFFIRMED THIS CASE WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIVE PLEADING ON HIS BEHALF BY HIS APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL.

 

The decision of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set aside.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand in that court for a new review under Article 66, UCMJ, with assistance of counsel under Article 70, UCMJ.  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, will apply.   

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 07-0253/NA.  U.S. v. John A. HALSEMA.  CCA 20001337.  Appellee's motion to stay proceedings granted.  Further action in this case is stayed for another period not to exceed ninety days.  The Government shall immediately notify the Court and appellate defense counsel of any decision regarding appellate defense counsel’s SCI clearance and access.

 

No. 09-0380/AF.  U.S. v. James N. DURBIN.  CCA 36969.  On consideration of the motions filed by Alistair E. Newbern, Esq., Vanderbilt Legal Clinic, Vanderbilt Law School, to appear as Amicus Curiae, to file brief of Amicus Curiae out of time, to submit oral argument, to allow appearance of law students, and to allow appearance of law students and withdraw prior motion to allow appearance of law students, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

 

No. 09-0775/AR.  U.S. v. Jonathan V. MEDINA.  CCA 20080233.  Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review out of time granted.

 

No. 09-0789/NA.  U.S. v. Michael W. PURDY.  CCA 200700659.  Appellant's motion to withdraw the petition for grant of review granted. 



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-025

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 09-0133/MC.  U.S. v. Raheem G. GREEN.  CCA 200800005.

No. 08-0660/NA.  U.S. v. Patrick P. CAMPBELL.  CCA 200700643.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0057/AR.  U.S. v. Jonathan D. LINCOLN.  CCA 20090221.

No. 10-0058/AF.  U.S. v. Shannon C.D. VITAL.  CCA S31595.

No. 10-0059/AF.  U.S. v. Alfredo TREVINO.  CCA S31599.

No. 10-0060/AF.  U.S. v. Kyle A. PEEK.  CCA S31628.

No. 10-0061/AF.  U.S. v. Kevin T. LOUDER.  CCA S31579.

No. 10-0062/AF.  U.S. v. Jonathan F. HOWARD.  CCA S31654.

No. 10-0063/AF.  U.S. v. Eric M. HEATHERLY.  CCA S31542.

No. 10-0064/AF.  U.S. v. Cody S. JACKSON.  CCA S31580. 

  

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0466/AF.  U.S. v. Adam D. DOUGLAS.  CCA S31059.  Appellant's motion to supplement the amended joint appendix granted.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-024

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 09-0602/AF.  U.S. v. Michael L. ROOSA.  CCA 37151.

 

No. 09-6006/MC.  U.S. v. Michael R. CROTCHETT.  CCA 200800770. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2000), it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied without prejudice.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 09-8030/AF.  Lee W. PAYTON, Appellant v. Major General Roger W. Burg, 20th AF/CC General Court-Martial Convening Authority F.E. Warren AFB, WY, and Colonel Michael E. Fortney, 341st MW/CC Special Court-Martial Convening Authority Malmstrom AFB, MT, and Lieutenant Colonel Don Christensen, HQ AF/JAT Military Judge, and United States, Appellees.  CCA 2009-03.  On consideration of the writ-appeal petition, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to Appellant’s right to raise the issue asserted during the course of normal appellate review.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 10-8003.  Chen Shui-Bian, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus was filed by mail under Rule 27(a) on September 21, 2009, and placed on the docket this 6th day of October, 2009.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 05-0157/NA.  U.S. v. Ivor G. LUKE.  CCA 200000481.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 26, 2009.

 

No. 09-0642/AF.  U.S. v. Brenton MCDANIEL.  CCA 36649.  On consideration of Appellant’s motion to attach documents, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied as moot as to the document at Tab A because this document is already attached to the record.  The motion is denied as to the document at Tab B.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 08-0770/MC.  U.S. v. Richard J. ASHBY.  CCA 200000250.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-023

Monday, October 5, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 05-0157/NA.  U.S. v. Ivor G. LUKE.  CCA 200000481.*

No. 10-0056/CG.  U.S. v. Joshua W. USRY.  CCA 1298.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 08-0660/NA.  U.S. v. Patrick P. CAMPBELL.  CCA 200700643.

Appellant's motion to cite supplemental authority granted.

___________________

 

*  Second petition filed in this case.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-022

Friday, October 2, 2009

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0053/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon D. BELL.  CCA S31603.

No. 10-0054/AF.  U.S. v. Sean D. HARDY.  CCA S31626.

No. 10-0055/AF.  U.S. v. Eric S. PICKHINKE.  CCA S31606.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0466/AF.  U.S. v. Adam D. DOUGLAS.  CCA S31059.  Appellant's motion to attach an amended joint appendix granted.

 

No. 10-0049/AR.  U.S. v. Emilio R. HARO.  CCA 20080941.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 13, 2009.

 

No. 10-0052/MC.  U.S. v. Raleigh J. WHITE, Jr.  CCA 200800558.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 22, 2009.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 10-021

Thursday, October 1, 2009

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 09-0577/AF.  U.S. v. Nathan W. ROBERTS II.  CCA 37000.  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, and the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 09-0577/AF.  U.S. v. Nathan W. ROBERTS II.  CCA 37000.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 10-0048/AR.  U.S. v. Eric D. BARNES.  CCA 20080918.

No. 10-0049/AR.  U.S. v. Emilio R. HARO.  CCA 20080941.

No. 10-0050/AR.  U.S. v. Ricky L. REESE.  CCA 20090114.

No. 10-0051/AF.  U.S. v. Esteban A. RODRIGUEZ.  CCA S31659.

No. 10-0052/MC.  U.S. v. Raleigh J. WHITE, Jr.  CCA 200800558.



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