Here’s a link. CAAF denies relief in an opinion by Judge Erdmann, joined by Chief Judge Effron and Judge Baker. While joining the majority opinion, Chief Judge Effron provides a brief concurring opinion noting his adherence to the views he expressed in Loving v. Hart, 47 M.J. 438, 454-60 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (Effron, J., concurring in part/dissenting in part). Judge Stucky and Judge Ryan each provided separate opinions. All five judges agreed that PVT Loving isn’t entitled to relief. The majority assumes without deciding that the trial defense counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable, then denies relief due to lack of prejudice. Judge Stucky concludes that PVT Loving’s trial defense counsel’s performance wasn’t objectively unreasonable. Judge Ryan concludes that CAAF doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain Loving’s habeas petition.