UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Friday, July 10, 2026
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
26-0242/AR. U.S. v. Grayson B. Denney. CCA 20240591.
Interlocutory Orders
No.
26-0207/CG. U.S. v. Phillip W. Woods. CCA 1504. Appellant's third motion to
extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is
granted, up to and including July 23, 2026. No further extensions of time will
be granted in this case.
No.
26-0223/MC. United States, Appellant v. Joel Gonzalez, Appellee. CCA 202500333.
Appellant's motion to extend time to file a brief is granted to August 14,
2026.
No.
26-0227/AR. U.S. v. Jesus D. Calvillomagana. CCA 20230161. Appellant's motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is
granted to August 3, 2026.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Thursday, July 9, 2026
Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
No.
26-0240/AR. U.S. v. Elvis A. Puente-Gonzalez. CCA 20240289.
No.
26-0241/NA. U.S. v. Brandon E. Corley. CCA 202500392.
Petition for Grant of Review Denied
No.
26-0174/MC. U.S. v. Dominique D. Wilson. CCA 202400373.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Wednesday, July 8, 2026
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
26-0239/AF. U.S. v. Joshua D. Allen. CCA 40809.
Petitions for Grant of Review Denied
No.
26-0139/NA. U.S. v. Levani J. Eneliko. CCA 202400058.
No.
26-0175/AR. U.S. v. Frank J. Barbosa. CCA 20240538.
No.
26-0196/NA. U.S. v. George B. Selleneit. CCA
202400185.
No.
26-0210/AR. U.S. v. Yoruba J. Jones. CCA 20230366.
No.
26-0215/NA. U.S. v. Zacharia T. Brechbiel. CCA 202500090.
Petition for Grant of Review - Summary
Disposition
No.
26-0187/NA. U.S. v. Jesus S. Santiago. CCA 202400399. On consideration of
the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the court below
affirmed a sentence that included "forfeiture of $1,008.60 pay per month for
six months," rather than a whole dollar amount of pay per month for six months.
See Rule for Courts Martial 1003(b)(2). Accordingly, it is ordered that said
petition is granted on the following specified issue:
Whether
the affirmed forfeiture of pay violated Rule for Courts Martial 1003(b)(2)
because it was not stated in a whole dollar amount.
The
decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is
affirmed as to findings and to only so much of the sentence as provides for
forfeiture of $1,008 pay per month for six months and reduction to the grade of
E-1.
Miscellaneous Docket - Summary
Disposition
No.
26-0219/AR. Isaac G. Aguigui, Petitioner. v. United States, Respondent. CCA
20140260.
On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in
the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, it is ordered that the
petition is denied.
Interlocutory Order
No.
26-0224/AF. U.S. v. Giorgio A. Szabo. CCA 40690. Appellant's second motion to
extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is
granted to July 23, 2026.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Tuesday, July 7, 2026
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
26-0238/AR. U.S. v. Richard K. Wilcoxson. CCA 20240104.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Monday, July 6, 2026
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
26-0237/AF. U.S. v. Collyn L. Lawrence. CCA 24064.
Interlocutory Orders
No.
26-0218/AF. U.S. v. Michael P. Doolin Jr. CCA 40745. Appellant's second motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is
granted to July 20, 2026.
No.
26-0222/AR. U.S. v. Brenton R. Hudgens. CCA 20240257. Appellant's second motion
to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is
granted to July 23, 2026.
No.
26-0237/AF. U.S. v. Collyn L. Lawrence. CCA 24064. Appellant's motion to extend
time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is granted to July 27, 2026.
Mandate Issued
No.
25-0070/AR. U.S. v. Daytron Abdullah. CCA 20230223.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Thursday, July 2, 2026
Interlocutory Orders
No.
25-0081/AR. U.S. v. Jerome J. Forrest. CCA 20200715. On consideration of the
motion filed by Captain Louis S. Steiner, for leave to withdraw as appellate
defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned
another counsel to represent Appellant and that the new attorney has assumed
the representation of said Appellant. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
motion is hereby granted.*
* Judge Maggs is recused
and did not participate.
No.
26-0148/AR. U.S. v. Shelton R. Keith. CCA 20230621. On consideration of the
motion filed by Captain Louis S. Steiner, for leave to withdraw as appellate
defense counsel, it is ordered that the motion is hereby granted.
No.
26-0236/AR. U.S. v. Matthew W. Martin. CCA 20250030. Appellant's motion to
extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review is
granted to July 23, 2026.
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
DAILY JOURNAL
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
Petition for Grant of Review Filed
No.
26-0236/AR. U.S. v. Matthew W. Martin. CCA 20250030.
Petition for Grant of Review Denied
No.
26-0212/AR. U.S. v. Dominique J. Barber. CCA 20250300.
Rules Change
Upon
careful consideration of certain proposed changes to the Rules of Practice and
Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which were
presented to and reviewed by the Rules Advisory Committee of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, it is ordered that effective July 1,
2026, Rule 24 is promulgated as provided in the Attachment to this order
(deletions appear with strikethrough and changes appear in bold typeface).
Rule
24 – Form, Content, and Type-Volume Limitations
***
(e)
Joint Appendix. In addition to electronically filing a joint appendix, the appellant
or petitioner is responsible for filing eight six paper copies of
a joint appendix, which is a separate document filed contemporaneously with the
brief.
***
Notice
Litigants
and their counsel are reminded that they are responsible for the accuracy and
quality of legal documents, including those produced with the assistance of
generative artificial intelligence. Counsel are
reminded of their duties under Rule 38(a) of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which states a
counsel's signature certifies that all filings have been reviewed for
truthfulness and accuracy. Any violation or use of AI-generated briefing that
misstates the law may be subject to sanction.
Home
Page | Opinions & Digest
| Daily
Journal | Scheduled Hearings
| Search Site