UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-040

Monday, October 31, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0131/AR.  U.S. v. Robert L. MURCHISON.  CCA 20101052.

No. 12-0132/AR.  U.S. v. Kristopher M. HILOU.  CCA 20100770.

No. 12-0133/NA.  U.S. v. Victor L. LEWIS.  CCA 201100037.

No. 12-0134/AR.  U.S. v. Jonathon L. TRUSS.  CCA 20080988.

No. 12-0135/AR.  U.S. v. Julian T. LORENTINO.  CCA 20110158.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-039

Friday, October 28, 2011

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0567/AR.  U.S. v. Eric L. NORDIN.  CCA 20090044.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED, TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO PRESENT A DEFENSE CASE ON FINDINGS OR TO PREPARE A DEFENSE SENTENCING CASE.

 

and on the following specified issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

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 for further appellate inquiry and consideration on the assigned and specified issues.

 

The Court of Criminal Appeals will obtain an additional affidavit from the military trial defense counsel relating to the assigned issue, an issue that is broader in scope than a similar one raised below.  That affidavit should address the military trial defense counsel's pretrial investigation, his preparation of a defense on the merits and a sentencing case, and his response to the post-trial affidavits of civilian trial defense counsel and Appellant.  Under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2006), the Court of Criminal Appeals shall review the assigned issue in light of the affidavit and any other relevant matters.  See United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 1997).  If the court determines that a fact-finding hearing is necessary, that court shall order a hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967).  Once the necessary information is obtained, the court will complete its Article 66(c), UCMJ, review.  Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2006), shall apply. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0567/AR.  U.S. v. Eric L. NORDIN.  CCA 20090044.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0023/MC.  U.S. v. James E. MCCOY.  CCA 201100080.

No. 12-0041/AR.  U.S. v. Robert L. MCKINNEY.  CCA 20100609.

No. 12-0050/AR.  U.S. v. Will H. HARRIS III.  CCA 20100846.

No. 12-0054/AR.  U.S. v. Rolando COLON.  CCA 20100691.

No. 12-0060/AF.  U.S. v. Samuel MEDINA, Jr.  CCA 37803.

No. 12-0061/AF.  U.S. v. Michael T. JOHNSON.  CCA S31835.

No. 12-0062/AF.  U.S. v. Terry L. DAGUE.  CCA 37706.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 09-5003/AF.  U.S. v. Brandon T. ROSE.  CCA 36508.

No. 12-0129/AR.  U.S. v. Jeffery C. JOSEPH.  CCA 20110008.

No. 12-0130/AR.  U.S. v. Jason L. SMITH.  CCA 20110165.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0440/MC.  U.S. v. Nicholas S. STEWART.  CCA 201000021.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file a reply brief granted to November 15, 2011.

 

No. 11-0647/MC.  U.S. v. Marchello K. HANCOCK.  CCA 201000400.  On consideration of the motion filed by Lieutenant Daniel Napier for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellant and the new attorney has assumed the representation of said Appellant.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

 

No. 12-0024/MC.  U.S. v. Steven E. MAUCERI.  CCA 201000573.  On consideration of the motion filed by Lieutenant Daniel Napier for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent Appellant and the new attorney has assumed the representation of said Appellant.  Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-038

Thursday, October 27, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0683/MC.  U.S. v. Donavon R. LEWIS.  CCA 201000431.

No. 12-0007/AR.  U.S. v. Jackie D. REAGAN III.  CCA 20100216.

No. 12-0051/AR.  U.S. v. Aldric D. CADE, Jr.  CCA 20100949.

No. 12-0052/AR.  U.S. v. Lawrence L. MINOR.  CCA 20090562.

No. 12-0055/AR.  U.S. v. Daniel M. BEARDSLEY.  CCA 20100367.

No. 12-0056/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon K. AKANA.  CCA 20100492.

No. 12-0058/AR.  U.S. v. Abdullah L. JONES.  CCA 20100983.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-037

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0128/NA.  U.S. v. Jacob D. NEVANDRO.  CCA 201000641.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8004/AF.  In re Andrew P. WITT, Senior Airman(E-4), United States Air Force, and Matthew E. Takara, Senior Airman (E-4), United States Air Force, Petitioners v. The United States, and United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0440/MC.  U.S. v. Nicholas S. STEWART.  CCA 201000021.  Appellee's motion to substitute the joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 11-5003/NA.  U.S. v. Thomas J. HAYES.  CCA 201000366.  On consideration of the motions filed by Professor Mark Zoole, Adjunct Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law, to file a brief of Amicus Curiae out of time, to appear pro hac vice as counsel of record, to allow appearance of law student on behalf of Amicus Curiae, for Justin Lepp to appear as Amicus Curiae, and for Justin Lepp to submit oral argument as Amicus Curiae, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted, and that Amicus Curiae will be allotted 10 minutes to present oral argument.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-036

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-0403/AF.  U.S. v. Brent A. CAMPBELL.  CCA 37460.

No. 10-0178/AF.  U.S. v. William J. ST BLANC, Jr.  CCA 37206.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-035

Monday, October 24, 2011

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-0231/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER, Jr.  CCA 19961044.

No. 11-0280/AR.  U.S. v. Douglas K. WINCKELMANN.  CCA 20070243.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0124/NA.  U.S. v. Kelvin J.C. RODEO.  CCA 201000590.

No. 12-0125/AR.  U.S. v. Robert A. LYON.  CCA 20090792.

No. 12-0126/AR.  U.S. v. Devon W. MARSH.  CCA 20100874.

No. 12-0127/AR.  U.S. v. John D. CORATHERS, II.  CCA 20100993.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-034

Friday, October 21, 2011

 

APPEALS SUMMARY-DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0104/AF.  U.S. v. Edward T. HUDSON.  CCA 37249.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).


ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW


No. 11-0104/AF.  U.S. v. Edward T. HUDSON.  CCA 37249.  [See also APPEALS SUMMARY-DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0688/AF.  U.S. v. Tracy L. MCLEAN.  CCA 37430.

No. 12-0016/AR.  U.S. v. Dean W. CLARKE IV.  CCA 20101016.

No. 12-0039/AR.  U.S. v. Jorge S. SALDANA DELGADO.  CCA 20110035.

No. 12-0040/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph H. PLASAN.  CCA 20101004.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0122/AR.  U.S. v. Edwin M. THOMAS.  CCA 20100463.

No. 12-0123/AR.  U.S. v. Andre K. HARDAWAY III.  CCA 20100139.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8005/AF.  In re Christopher M. LANIER, Petitioner.  On consideration of Petitioner's expedited petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, or in the alternative prohibition, and motion for stay of the proceedings, it is ordered that the petition and motion to stay are hereby denied.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-033

Thursday, October 20, 2011

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0629/AR.  U.S. v. Jesse V. SPIELMAN.  CCA 20070883.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0629/AR.  U.S. v. Jesse V. SPIELMAN.  CCA 20070883.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS t his date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0634/AR.  U.S. v. Cortis E. SLOAN.  CCA 20090241.

No. 12-0031/AF.  U.S. v. Kashara C. JOSEPH.  CCA S31872.

No. 12-0032/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher A. LENTZ.  CCA 37769.

No. 12-0033/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph M. RUBITSCHUNG.  CCA S31817.

No. 12-0035/AR.  U.S. v. Billy R. WHITE, III.  CCA 20100530.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0121/AR.  U.S. v. Donald M. ARSENAULT.  CCA 20100938.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-032

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0639/AR.  U.S. v. Tanner P. FORRY.  CCA 20080334.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

No. 12-0034/AR.  U.S. v. Joel L. KAIN II.  CCA 20100490.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 MJ. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

[See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0639/AR.  U.S. v. Tanner P. FORRY.  CCA 20080334.  [See also APPEALS–SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 12-0034/AR.  U.S. v. Joel L. KAIN II.  CCA 20100490.  [See also APPEALS–SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0025/AF.  U.S. v. Robert W. BLOOM.  CCA S31826.

No. 12-0027/AF.  U.S. v. Andrew C. EVANS.  CCA S31787.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0120/AR.  U.S. v. Kamien M. KING.  CCA 20090912.

No. 12-6002/AF.  U.S. v. Darren N. HATHORNE.  CCA 2011-02.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0119/AF.  U.S. v. Darren N. HATHORNE.  CCA 2011-02.  On consideration of Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review and motion to withdraw the original petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion to withdraw the original petition for grant of review is hereby granted, and that said motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is hereby denied as moot.

 

No. 12-6002/AF.  U.S. v. Darren N. HATHORNE.  CCA 2011-02.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals on appeal by the United States under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862, was filed by counsel under Rule 20, on October 19, 2011, together with a motion to file the supplement separately under Rules 19(a)(5)(A) and 30.  On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said motion to file the supplement separately is hereby granted to November 8, 2011.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-031

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0582/MC.  U.S. v. Christian W. CARNEY.  CCA 201000149.

No. 11-0621/AR.  U.S. v. Jared M. BOEH.  CCA 20090764.

No. 12-0014/AF.  U.S. v. Denaya S. STAPLETON.  CCA S31762.

No. 12-0017/AR.  U.S. v. Clifford N. BROOKS II.  CCA 20110167.

No. 12-0018/AR.  U.S. v. Joseph J. RODZIEWICZ.  CCA 20100577.

No. 12-0021/AR.  U.S. v. Steve H. CORRIHER.  CCA 20100982.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0119/AF.  U.S. v. Darren N. HATHORNE.  CCA 2011-02.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-5003/AF.  U.S., Appellant v. Brandon T. ROSE, Appellee.  CCA 36508.  Appellee's motion to dismiss the certificate for review as untimely is denied.

 

MANDATES ISSUED

 

No. 10-0483/AR.  U.S. v. David C. ELLERBROCK.  CCA 20070925.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-030

Monday, October 17, 2011

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

Misc. No. 12-8005/AF.  In re Christopher M. LANIER, Petitioner. Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, or in the alternative prohibition was filed under Rule 27(a) on this date.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8003/AF. In re Andrew P. WITT, Senior Airman (E-4) United States Air Force, and Matthew E. TAKARA, Senior Airman (E-4) United States Air Force, Petitioners v. The United States, and United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents.  On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of an emergency stay, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-8004/AF. In re Andrew P. WITT, Senior Airman (E-4) United States Air Force, and Matthew E. TAKARA, Senior Airman (E-4) United States Air Force, Petitioners v. The United States, and United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents. On consideration of Petitioners' motion to submit document, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied.    



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-029

Friday, October 14, 2011

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0547/AR.  U.S. v. Ivan D. GOINGS.  CCA 20080602.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0547/AR.  U.S. v. Ivan D. GOINGS.  CCA 20080602.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.] 

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0103/AR.  U.S. v. Robert G. BULECHEK.  CCA 20100565.

No. 12-0104/AF.  U.S. v. Joedon CARRILLO.  CCA S31831.

No. 12-0105/AR.  U.S. v. John C. BODDY.  CCA 20100078.

No. 12-0106/AF.  U.S. v. Michael A. CISNEROS.  CCA S31871.

No. 12-0107/AF.  U.S. v. Michael O. CLARK.  CCA 37494.

No. 12-0108/AF.  U.S. v. Megan L. COOPER.  CCA S31727.

No. 12-0109/AF.  U.S. v. Jessica A. WINKLER.  CCA 37802.

No. 12-0110/AF.  U.S. v. Anthony G. POLOZZOLO, Jr.  CCA S31892.

No. 12-0111/AF.  U.S. v. Joshua A. DOBBINS.  CCA S31839.

No. 12-0112/AF.  U.S. v. Nicholas J. SOBCZYK.  CCA S31789.

No. 12-0113/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy J. GAZZOLA.  CCA S31764.

No. 12-0114/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher R. HOWARD.  CCA S31662.

No. 12-0115/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew S. HUNTER.  CCA 20100954.

No. 12-0116/AF.  U.S. v. John A. JACKSON, Jr.  CCA 37417.

No. 12-0117/AF.  U.S. v. Cedric B. HARDY.  CCA S31780.

No. 12-0118/AF.  U.S. v. Julian D. MOGG.  CCA 37840.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 11-0526/AF.  U.S. v. Kody T. WEEKS.  CCA 37535.  Appellee's motion to file a substitute joint appendix is granted.

 

No. 12-0099/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew J. MCCLAIN.  CCA 20090446.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 2, 2011.

 

No. 12-0100/AF.  U.S. v. Chase C. MONTGOMERY.  CCA 37556.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 2, 2011.

 

No. 12-0101/AF.  U.S. v. Angel D. SANTOS.  CCA 37669.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 2, 2011.

 

No. 12-0102/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph M. EMMONS.  CCA 37738.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 2, 2011.

 

No. 12-0103/AR.  U.S. v. Robert G. BULECHEK.  CCA 20100565.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 2, 2011 .

 

No. 12-0105/AR.  U.S. v. John C. BODDY.  CCA 20100078.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 3, 2011.

 

No. 12-0107/AF.  U.S. v. Michael O. CLARK.  CCA 37494.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 3, 2011.

 

No. 12-0108/AF.  U.S. v. Megan L. COOPER.  CCA S31727.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 3, 2011.

 

No. 12-0113/AF.  U.S. v. Timothy J. GAZZOLA.  CCA S31764.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petiton for grant of review granted to November 3, 2011.

 

No. 12-0114/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher R. HOWARD.  CCA S31662.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 3, 2011.

 

No. 12-0117/AF.  U.S. v. Cedric B. HARDY.  CCA S31780.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 3, 2011.

 

No. 12-0118/AF.  U.S. v. Julian D. MOGG.  CCA 37840.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to November 3, 2011.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-028

Thursday, October 13, 2011

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 12-0026/AF.  U.S. v. Charles L. WALTON.  CCA 37664.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 12-0026/AF.  U.S. v. Charles L. WALTON.  CCA 37664.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0670/MC.  U.S. v. Dean H. LACROIX.  CCA 201100126.

No. 11-0684/AR.  U.S. v. Timothy B. CARROLL.  CCA 20110058.

No. 11-0686/NA.  U.S. v. Ralph D. COMBEST.  CCA 201100185.

No. 12-0010/AF.  U.S. v. Christopher D. GULEFF.  CCA 37542.

No. 12-0011/AR.  U.S. v. James T. LYNCH, Jr.  CCA 20100865.

No. 12-0013/AF.  U.S. v. James E.C. SELLE.  CCA 37599.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0097/AF.  U.S. v. Deron D. HOLLOWAY.  CCA 37760.

No. 12-0098/AF.  U.S. v. Dustin M. CLARK.  CCA 37871.

No. 12-0099/AR.  U.S. v. Matthew J. MCCLAIN.  CCA 20090446.

No. 12-0100/AF.  U.S. v. Chase C. MONTGOMERY.  CCA 37556.

No. 12-0101/AF.  U.S. v. Angel D. SANTOS.  CCA 37669.

No. 12-0102/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph M. EMMONS.  CCA 37738.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-027

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-0282/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. MORRISSETTE.  CCA 20090166.

No. 11-0239/AR-11-5004/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip L. PIERCE.  CCA 20080009.

No. 11-0389/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. GOODMAN.  CCA 20090083.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0093/AF.  U.S. v. Aaron A. LOPEZ.  CCA 37724.

No. 12-0094/AF.  U.S. v. Michael A. TOWNE.  CCA S31897.

No. 12-0095/AR.  U.S. v. Jesse R. MORTON.  CCA 20110056.

No. 12-0096/NA.  U.S. v. John CUMMINGS, Jr.  CCA 201000623.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 09-0079/AR.  U.S. v. James T. MURPHY.  CCA 19872873.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is granted, up to and including October 20, 2011, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 11-5005/MC.  U.S. v. Jeremy J. NASH.  CCA 201000220.  The motion of the United States to extend time to file a brief is granted, up to and including October 31, 2011, 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. 12-026

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

 

HEARINGS

 

No. 11-0257/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas J. SCHUMACHER.  CCA 201000153.

No. 11-0143/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron R. STANLEY.  CCA 20050703.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW - OTHER SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0580/AR.  U.S. v. Gregory A. ROBINSON.  CCA 20100495.  On consideration of the petition for grant of review filed personally by the Appellant on September 28, 2011, under Rule 19(a)(4), Rules of Practice and Procedure, and docketed as a second petition under Docket Number 11-0580/AR, it appears that said petition was prematurely filed.  The case is pending this date before the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals following this Court's remand on September 21, 2011. Accordingly, it is ordered that this case be removed from the docket without prejudice to the submission of a timely filed petition in due course.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0086/AF.  U.S. v. Addison T. MCFARLAND.  CCA S31855.

No. 12-0087/AF.  U.S. v. Tyler W. MEROLA.  CCA 37701.

No. 12-0088/AR.  U.S. v. Jessie GOMEZ, Jr.  CCA 20100524.

No. 12-0089/AF.  U.S. v. Chad R. SCHROEDER.  CCA 37475.

No. 12-0090/AF.  U.S. v. Joseph A. HAYES.  CCA 37588.

No. 12-0091/AF.  U.S. v. Christian A. HOLMLUND.  CCA 37786.

No. 12-0092/AF.  U.S. v. Brian J. HOWES.  CCA S31809.

 

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

 

No. 10-0483/AR.  United States, Appellee v. David C. ELLERBROCK, Appellant.  CCA 20070925.  On consideration of Appellant's timely filed petition for reconsideration of this Court's decision, United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2011), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is hereby denied.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0036/AR.  U.S. v. James E. CRAWFORD.  CCA 20100247.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 26, 2011, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0083/CG.  U.S. v. Kerry M. SCOTT.  CCA 1336.  On consideration of motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted to October 27, 2011.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-025

Friday, October 7, 2011

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0475/AR.  U.S. v. Robert L. CONRADY.  CCA 20080534.  Review granted on the following specified issues:

 

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR SODOMY WITH A CHILD (SPECIFICATION 3 OF CHARGE II), AND INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD (SPECIFICATION 7 OF CHARGE III) "ON DIVERS OCCASIONS."

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011)

 

The guilty findings to the words "on divers occasions" contained in Specification 3 of Charge II and Specification 7 of Charge III are set aside and dismissed, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the second  specified issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):

 

I concur with the disposition of the first specified issue.  I dissent on the disposition of the second issue for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F 2011).

 

EFFRON, Senior Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 233-40 (C.A.A.F 2011).

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0003/AF.  U.S. v. Victoria L. PATTON.  CCA S31824.

No. 12-0004/AF.  U.S. v. Gregory K. HUTCHESON.  CCA S31814.

No. 12-0005/AF.  U.S. v. Virginia A. HESS.  CCA S31883.

No. 12-0006/AF.  U.S. v. Michael L. BURNETT.  CCA S31873.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0083/CG.  U.S. v. Kerry M. SCOTT.  CCA 1336.

No. 12-0084/AF.  U.S. v. Amber N. DEJESUS.  CCA S31845.

No. 12-0085/MC.  U.S. v. Michael D. FRANSON.  CCA 201100256.

 

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET - FILINGS

 

Misc. No. 12-8003/AF.  In re Andrew P. WITT, Senior Airman(E-4), United States Air Force, and Matthew E. Takara, Senior Airman (E-4), United States Air Force, Petitioners v. The United States, and United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of an emergency stay was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 6, 2011, and placed on the docket this date.

 

Misc. No. 12-8004/AF.  In re Andrew P. WITT, Senior Airman(E-4), United States Air Force, and Matthew E. Takara, Senior Airman (E-4), United States Air Force, Petitioners v. The United States, and United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, Respondents.  Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 6, 2011, and placed on the docket this date.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-024

Thursday, October 6, 2011

 

APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0644/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon T. TESSIER.  CCA 20100161.  On consideration of the petition for a grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted, and that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

*  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect that both the plea and finding with respect to Specification 1 of the Charge were "Guilty," and that the specification had been amended prior to arraignment to read as follows:  "In that Specialist Brandon T. Tessier, U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Dix, New Jersey, between on or about 15 November 2008 and 28 November 2008, wrongfully and knowingly possess child pornography, which was to the prejudice of good order and discipline, or was of a nature to bring discredit to the armed forces." [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 11-0664/NA.  U.S. v. Derek L. ALLEN.  CCA 201100040.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 12-0019/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas A. PRESSLEY.  CCA 20110106.  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 that the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*

 

*  It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to reflect a plea of not guilty to the Specification of Charge III. [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.] 

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0644/AR.  U.S. v. Brandon T. TESSIER.  CCA 20100161.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 11-0664/NA.  U.S. v. Derek L. ALLEN.  CCA 201100040.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 12-0019/AR.  U.S. v. Thomas A. PRESSLEY.  CCA 20110106.  [See also APPEALS – SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0075/AF.  U.S. v. Daniel H. HOOPES.  CCA S31825.

No. 12-0076/AF.  U.S. v. Ernest W. MOORE, II.  CCA 37870.

No. 12-0077/AR.  U.S. v. David A. HAGINS.  CCA 20100373.

No. 12-0078/AF.  U.S. v. William R. CHOPE.  CCA S31769.

No. 12-0079/AF.  U.S. v. Carlos A. LEE.  CCA S31870.

No. 12-0080/AF.  U.S. v. Bradley R. COOPER.  CCA S31896.

No. 12-0081/AF.  U.S. v. Joel D. MCNEARNEY.  CCA 37778.

No. 12-0082/AF.  U.S. v. Steven D. HARRIS, Jr.  CCA S31822.

No. 12-6001/AF.  U.S. v. Scott M. DEASE, Jr.  CCA 2011-04.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-023

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0589/AR.  U.S. v. Randa L. TAYLOR.  CCA 20080958.

No. 11-0660/MC.  U.S. v. Matthew A. BRUNGART.  CCA 201000659.

No. 11-0672/AR.  U.S. v. Glenn E. FRECHIN.  CCA 20101000.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0073/MC.  U.S. v. Mark A. LEUBECKER.  CCA 201100091.

No. 12-0074/AR.  U.S. v. Kyle E. CHATTEN.  CCA 20110001.



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-022

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

 

NOTICES

 

No. 11-0143/AR.  U.S. v. Aaron R. STANLEY.  CCA 20050703.

No. 11-0239/AR.  U.S. v. Phillip L. PIERCE. CCA 20080009.

No. 11-0257/MC.  U.S. v. Thomas J. SCHUMACHER.  CCA 201000153.

No. 11-0282/AR.  U.S. v. Bobby D. MORRISSETTE. CCA 20090166.

No. 11-0389/AR.  U.S. v. Kenneth L. GOODMAN.  CCA 20090083.

 

In view of the existence of a vacant position on the Court, notice is hereby given that the Chief Judge has called upon Senior Judge Andrew S. Effron to perform judicial duties in the above cases, and that Senior Judge Effron has consented to perform judicial duties in the cases under Article 142(e)(1) (A)(ii), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 942(e) (1)(A) (ii)(2006).

 

No. 10-0178/AF.  U.S. v. William J. ST BLANC., Jr.  CCA 37206.

No. 11-0231/AR.  U.S. v. William J. KREUTZER., Jr. CCA 19961044.

No. 11-0280/AR.  U.S. v. Douglas K. WINCKELMANN.  CCA 20070243.

No. 11-0396/MC.  U.S. v. Joshua D. FRY.  CCA 201000179.

No. 11-0403/AF.  U.S. v. Brent A. CAMPBELL.  CCA 37460.

No. 11-5003/NA.  U.S. v. Thomas J. HAYES.  CCA 201000366.

 

In view of the existence of a vacant position on the Court, notice is hereby given that the Chief Judge has called upon Senior Judge Walter T. Cox III to perform judicial duties in the above cases, and that Senior Judge Cox has consented to perform judicial duties in the cases under Article 142(e)(1)(A)(ii), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 942(e)(1)(A)(ii) (2006).

 

APPEALS - SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

 

No. 11-0650/AF.  U.S. v. Robert A. NICHOLSON.  CCA 37642.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

No. 11-0661/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua J. CHASTAIN.  CCA 20100994.  Review granted on the following issue:

 

WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.  The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

 

BAKER, Chief Judge (dissenting):

 

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Fosler.  United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225, 240-47 (C.A.A.F. 2011).  [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]

 

ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW

 

No. 11-0650/AF.  U.S. v. Robert A. NICHOLSON.  CCA 37642.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

No. 11-0661/AR.  U.S. v. Joshua J. CHASTAIN.  CCA 20100994.  [See also APPEALS-SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS this date.]

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 12-0001/AF.  U.S. v. Rebekah J. WATSON.  CCA S31746.

No. 12-0002/AF.  U.S. v. Deondre M. WARE.  CCA S31813.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0020/AR.  U.S. v. Exavious J. DAVENPORT.  CCA 20090507.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 24, 2011.

 

No. 12-0070/AF.  U.S. v. Erica N. PERRY.  CCA 37676.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 24, 2011.

 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

DAILY JOURNAL

No. 12-021

Monday, October 3, 2011

 

NOTICE - IN RE SEPTEMBER 2011 TERM OF COURT

 

Article 142 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 942 (2006) authorizes the appointment of five judges to serve on the Court. One of the positions is vacant. Unless the Court issues a notice that a senior judge or an Article III judge will perform judicial duties, the four judges in active service will perform the functions of the Court. See Articles 142 and 144, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 942 and 944, and U.S.C.A.A.F. Rule 6(a).

 

For the Court,

/s/ William A. DeCicco

Clerk of the Court

 

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW DENIED

 

No. 11-0605/AF.  U.S. v. Adam E. PITMAN.  CCA 37453.

No. 11-0608/AR.  U.S. v. Damien L. PURCELL.  CCA 20080856.

No. 11-0663/NA.  U.S. v. Zornell L. MALONE.  CCA 201000387.

No. 11-0676/AR.  U.S. v. David W. PAULI.  CCA 20100748.

No. 11-0678/AF.  U.S. v. Lauren D. JERNIGAN.  CCA 37771.

No. 11-0679/AF.  U.S. v. Elven B. MCKAY.  CCA 37637.

No. 11-0680/AF.  U.S. v. Kimber L. GIERINGER.  CCA 37764.

No. 11-0681/AF.  U.S. v. Katherine MORENO.  CCA S31862.

No. 11-0682/AF.  U.S. v. Adrianne T. HESSLER.  CCA S31877.

No. 11-0685/AF.  U.S. v. Tyler W. HARRISON.  CCA S31867.

No. 11-0687/AF.  U.S. v. Chad J. ZIMMERMAN.  CCA S31816.

No. 11-0689/AF.  U.S. v. Jason A. STEWART.  CCA S31903.

 

PETITIONS FOR GRANT OF REVIEW FILED

 

No. 12-0069/MC.  U.S. v. Matthew E. DAVIS.  CCA 201100057.

No. 12-0070/AF.  U.S. v. Erica N. PERRY.  CCA 37676.

No. 12-0071/AR.  U.S. v. Robert M. BIGBACK.  CCA 20101044.

No. 12-0072/AF.  U.S. v. Keith D. DYE, Jr.  CCA S31887.

 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

 

No. 12-0015/AR.  U.S. v. Marvin C. SIMPSON.  CCA 20091039.  Appellant's second motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted, up to and including October 7, 2011, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time ill be granted in this case.

 

No. 12-0066/AF.  U.S. v. Charles W. CALEY, Jr.  CCA 37573.  Appellant's motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to October 20, 2011.

 


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