Having solved CAAF’s dismissal of the petition for review in Rivera, we can now speculate about this denial of an extension of time for the Judge Advocate General of the Navy to certify a Government appeal, from Friday’s daily journal:

No. 17-0034/NA. U.S. v. Richard A. Latour. CCA 201600114. Notice is hereby given that a motion for an enlargement of time to file a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and motion to stay the trial proceedings were filed under Rule 30 on this 21st day of October, 2016. On consideration thereof, it is ordered that said motions are hereby denied.

In United States v. Latour, 75 M.J. 723 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App, Jul 12, 2016) (discussed here), a three-judge panel of the NMCCA rejected a Government appeal under Article 62 of a military judge’s ruling that excluded the accused’s admissions for lack of corroboration.

2 Responses to “More fun(?) with deadlines”

  1. Tom Booker says:

    It really is not all that difficult, is it?  Read the rule, apply the rule.  If the deadline is 60 days after the date of the decision, have your brief written and your petition ready to file on day 30.
     
    I believe it was Judge Cox who wrote an opinion (perhaps a concurrence) in a speedy trial case (people used to be relieved for cause for losing those motions; now they get Legions of Merit) that had some very simple advice:  Write, in red (or other contrasting color) ink, on the outside of the folder the date the pleading is due.
     
    There really are few excuses for missing these deadlines.  OPTEMP just does not exist ashore.
     
    But of course, I’m no expert on this military justice stuff.
     
    Respectfully, LTB

  2. Tom Booker says:

    OPTEMPO, sorry.