CAAFlog » TWIMJ

This week at SCOTUS: The Government received an additional (4th) extension of time to respond to the cert. petition in Sullivan. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Witt, No. 15-0260/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Whether a court of criminal appeals sitting en banc can reconsider a previous en banc decision of that court pursuant to statutory authority, applicable precedent, or inherent authority?
II. Whether a decision of a court of criminal appeals sitting en banc can be reconsidered en banc when the composition of the en banc court has changed?

Case Links:
AFCCA decision (72 M.J. 727)
Blog post: AFCCA sets aside death sentence in Witt
AFCCA decision (73 M.J. 738)
Blog post: AFCCA reinstates the death penalty for Senior Airman Witt
Blog post: #7 Military Justice Story of 2014
Blog post: CAAF to examine the AFCCA’s reconsideration
Blog post: Oral argument limited to two issues
• Appellant’s brief (specified issues)
Appellee’s (Government) brief (specified issues)
Appellant’s reply brief (specified issues)
Appellee’s (Government) brief (specified issues
Appellant’s brief (other issues)
Appellee’s (Government) brief (other issues)
Appellant’s reply brief (other issues)
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, April 27, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Sterling, No.s 15-0510/MC & 16-0223/MC (CAAFlog case page)

Specified Issues:
I. Did Appellant establish that her conduct in displaying signs referencing biblical passages in her shared workplace constituted an exercise of religion within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (2012), as amended? If so, did the actions of her superior noncommissioned officer in ordering her to take the signs down, and in removing them when she did not, constitute a substantial burden on appellant’s exercise of religion within the meaning of the Act? If so, were these actions in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest?
II. Did Appellant’s superior noncommissioned officer have a valid military purpose in ordering appellant to remove signs referencing biblical passages from her shared workplace?

Certified Issues:
I. Did Appellant’s failure to follow an instruction on the accommodation of religious practices impact her claim for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
II. Did Appellant waive or forfeit her Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim of error by failing to raise it at trial?

Case Links:
NMCCA oral argument audio
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: A military order vs. the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Blog post: The Government’s answer and an amicus brief in Sterling
Blog post: CAAF grants (on specified issues) in Sterling
Blog post: Navy JAG certifies issues in Sterling (and the appellant files her brief)
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Appellee’s (Government) reply brief
Amicus brief (in support of Sterling): Aleph Institute, et al.
Amicus brief (in support of Sterling): Alliance Defending Freedom and Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty
Amicus brief (in support of Sterling): Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Faith and Action, Public Advocate of the U.S., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution, E. Ray Moore, and George P. Byrum
Amicus brief (in support of Sterling): Members of Congress, American Center for Law and Justice, and Committee to Protect Religious Liberty in the Military
Amicus brief (in support of Sterling): Nine Retired General Officers
Amicus brief (in support of Sterling): Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz
Amicus brief (in support of Government): Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, and People for the American Way Foundation 
Amicus brief (in support of neither party): States of Oklahoma, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). The Army CCA will hear oral argument in three cases this week:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United State v. Bonilla, No. 20131084 Edit: rescheduled to May 12.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Marsh, No. 20120572

Friday, April 29, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Manriquez, No. 20140893

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on May 11, 2016.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public, however I can report that the Army CCA will hear oral argument in the Bergdahl case this week, on Friday, April 22, 2016, at 10 a.m.

Additional scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA include:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United State v. Bonilla, No. 20131084

Wednesday, April 27, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Marsh, No. 20120572

Friday, April 29, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Manriquez, No. 20140893

Thursday, May 5, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United States v. Hennis, No. 20100304

Monday, May 9, 2016, at 10 a.m.: United State v. Craig, No. 201650272

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on April 26, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on May 11, 2016.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The Court denied cert. in Katso (noted here). A new cert. petition was filed in Akbar v. United States (CAAFlog case page). Last year CAAF split 3-2 to affirm Sergeant Akbar’s death sentence for his attack on fellow soldiers in Kuwait in 2003 that killed two and wounded 14 others. Akbar is one of only six military death row inmates.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking two cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on April 26, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case on Thursday, April 14, 2016, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Valladares-Garcia

Case summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of making a false official statement, sodomy, and adultery in violation of Articles 107, 125, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 907, 925, and 934 (2012). The members sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:
I. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments give appellant a substantial right to fair notice of the charge against him. Charge II (consensual sodomy) fails to expressly allege a Marcum factor and therefore fails to state an offense. The government failed to cure the defect by not providing notice through the presentation of evidence. Should Charge II be dismissed?
II. The Government must prove each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the Government failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove Charge III (adultery). Specifically, the Government failed to introduce sufficient evidence that sexual intercourse occurred between appellant and Ms. MM or that the appellant’s alleged adultery was prejudicial to good order and discipline or had a tendency to bring the armed services in to disrepute or lower it in the public esteem. Is the adultery conviction legally and factually sufficient?

This week at SCOTUS: The Court considered the Katso petition in its conference on Friday. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week. Both are project outreach arguments:

Tuesday, April 5, 2016, at 12:15 p.m., at the University of Alabama School of Law:

United States v. Harrell, No. 16-007/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether evidence obtained from a police search of appellant’s vehicle on or about August 4, 2010, was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and should have been suppressed.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Amicus brief (law school)
Blog post: Argument preview

Wednesday, April 6, 2016, at 9 a.m., at the Wood Auditorium at the Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama:

United States v. Martin, 15-0754/MC (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
Specified issue: Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the human lie detector testimony offered by the alleged victim’s husband was not materially prejudicial.
Certified issue: Did trial defense counsel invite error when he opened the door to human lie detector testimony during the cross-examination of the victim’s husband?

Case Links:
• NMCCA opinion
• Appellant’s brief (granted issue)
• Appellee’s (Government) brief (certified issue)
• Appellant’s reply brief (granted issue)
Appellee’s (Government) reply brief (certified issue)
• Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on Thursday, April 14, 2016.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on April 5, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The petition in Katso was distributed for conference. I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on April 5, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The petitioner in Katso filed a reply brief (available here) in support of the cert. petition. The Solicitor General received another extension to respond to the cert. petition in Sullivan.

I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in two cases this week, both on Tuesday, March 15, 2016, beginning at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Clark, No. 16-0068/NA (CAAFlog case page)

Issues:
I. Article 66(c), UCMJ, requires that courts of criminal appeals conduct a plenary review of the entire record and “recogniz[e] that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses.” in reversing appellee’s convictions for factual insufficiency without acknowledging the military judge’s non-guilt special findings did the lower court fail to conduct a complete Article 66(c) review?
II. In conducting its factual sufficiency review, the lower court used a different standard of review for the non-guilt special findings made by the military judge under Rule for Courts-Martial 918(b) than that adopted by the Army and Air Force Courts of Criminal Appeals. should the lower court have reviewed the military judge’s non-guilt special findings under the clear error standard adopted by the Army and Air Force Courts of Criminal Appeals?

Case Links:
NMCCA opinion
Blog post: An appellant’s sex assault convictions are reversed, but he isn’t released from confinement (yet)
Blog post: The Navy JAG certifies Clark
Appellant’s (Government) brief
Appellee’s brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

United States v. Rogers, No. 16-0006/CG (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in denying the implied bias challenge against CDR K in light of her various professional and personal experience with sexual assault.

Case Links:
CGCCA opinion
Blog post: CAAF grants review of an implied bias challenge of a member
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief
Appellant’s reply brief
Blog post: Argument preview

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is still not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

Significant military justice event this week: A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, March 11, 2016. The Public Session will begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at 4:45 p.m. Additional details are available here.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on March 15, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is not accessible to the public (discussed here). I’m not aware of any scheduled oral arguments at the Army CCA.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on March 10, 2016, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Brown (prior coverage here)

Case summary: Appellant’s case is before this Court for a second time. On 5 October 2012, a panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of making a false official statement, assault consummated by battery, communicating a threat, and two specifications of wrongfully possessing a firearm, in violation of Articles 107, 128, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 907, 928, and 934 (2012). The members sentenced Appellant to fifteen years’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances for twelve months, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority (CA) approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

On 30 June 2014, this Court set aside and dismissed with prejudice the false official statement conviction based on legal insufficiency. The Court set aside the remaining findings and sentence and authorized a rehearing on the remaining charges. The Convening Authority (CA) ordered a rehearing.

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial on 31 March 2015 convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of assault consummated by battery and two specifications of wrongfully possessing a firearm, in violation of Articles 128 and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 928 and 934 (2012). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for two years, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge. The CA approved the adjudged sentence, applied the awarded pretrial confinement credit, and, except for the bad-conduct discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Issues:
I. A military judge has authority to make orders and abate proceedings if his orders are not complied with. The military judge held he could not order the United States government to pay Sgt Brown his rightful pay in order to cure an Article 13, UCMJ, violation, which resulted in a Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel violation. Did the military judge abuse his discretion by erroneously providing only confinement credit and not ordering payment or abating the proceedings?
II. A plea is improvident where the facts are insufficient to fulfill the elements of the specification charged. Appellant’s 2011 conviction is not a “qualifying offense” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 – which is an element of the Article 134 charge alleged in Specifications two and three of Charge V – because Sgt Brown never knowingly and intelligently waived his right to jury trial. Therefore, is Sgt Brown’s plea of guilty to Specifications two and three of Charge V improvident?

Significant military justice events this week:

The Code Committee meets on Tuesday, March 1, 2016, at 10 a.m. at CAAF. Announcement here.

CAAF’s 2016 Continuing Legal Education is on Wednesday and Thursday, March 2-3, 2016, at American University, Washington College of Law, Claudio Grossman Hall. Registration information available here.

This week at SCOTUS: The Government filed its brief in opposition to the cert petition in Katso. A copy is available here. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on March 15, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is not accessible to the public (discussed here). However, I can report that the CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Friday, March 4, 2016, at 10 a.m.:

United States v. Gibbs, No. 20110998

Issues:
I. Whether the convening authority abused his discretion by denying the defense request for a post-trial hearing because the defense claim supporting the request was not unsubstantiated.
II. Whether the government violated appellant’s due process rights by failing to disclose material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on March 10, 2016.

This week at SCOTUS: The Court further extended the time for the Solicitor General to provide the requested response in Sullivan to March 30. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: CAAF will hear oral argument in four cases this week:

Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Gay, Nos. 15-0742/AF & 15-0750/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Granted Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred by failing to remand appellant’s case for a hearing pursuant to United States v. Dubay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), to determine the facts surrounding appellant’s post-trial solitary confinement. See United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (1997).

Certified Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) abused its discretion and committed legal error by reaching its decision that Article 66, UCMJ, grants it the authority to grant sentence appropriateness relief for post-trial confinement conditions even though there was no violation of the Eighth Amendment or Article 55, UCMJ, in direct contravention of this court’s binding precedent.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: The AFCCA finds that using solitary confinement to avoid violating Article 12 isn’t cruel and unusual, but deserves relief
Blog post: The Air Force JAG certifies two cases to CAAF
Blog post: CAAF specifies an additional issue in Gay
Appellant’s brief (granted issue)
Appellee’s (Government) brief (granted issue)
Cross-appellant’s (Government) brief (certified issue)
Cross-appellee’s brief (certified issue)

Followed by:

United States v. Atchak, No. 16-0054/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals erred in setting aside and dismissing the specifications of aggravated assault without authorizing the convening authority to order a rehearing for the lesser included offenses of assault consummated by a battery.

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: Two Air Force certifications, and a grant in a Marine Corps case
Appellant’s (Government) brief
Appellee’s brief

Wednesday, February 24, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.:

United States v. Caldwell, No. 16-0091/AR (CAAFlog case page)

Issue: Whether the military judge committed plain error when he instructed the panel using a negligence standard for maltreatment of a subordinate in violation of Article 93.

Case Links:
ACCA opinion (summary disposition)
Blog post: CAAF grants review of a Grostefon issue
Appellant’s brief
Appellee’s (Government) brief

Followed by:

United States v. Williams, No. 16-0053/AF (CAAFlog case page)

Issue (specified by the court): Whether the United States may file successive motions for reconsideration of a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and thereby effectively extend the 60-day filing deadline for a certificate of review of such decision. See CAAF Rules of Practice and Procedure 19(b)(3); 22(b)(3); and 34(a).

Case Links:
AFCCA opinion
Blog post: Two Air Force certifications, and a grant in a Marine Corps case
Blog post: Three new CAAF grants
• Appellant’s (Government) brief
Appellee’s brief

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is not accessible to the public (discussed here). However, I can report that the CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week:

Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10 a.m.: United States v. Allen, No. 20130521

Issues:
I. [Whether t]he findings that the appellant committed sexual assault are factually and legally insufficient.
II. [Whether t]he military judge erred by not replaying testimony after a panel member requested a transcript of testimony and telling the panel members that replaying testimony would cause a delay.

Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10 a.m.: United States v. Mitchell, No. 20150776

Issue: Whether the military judge erred in suppressing Appellee’s cell phone and the evidence from it by holding that unlocking his cell phone constituted a testimonial act and law enforcement re-initiated communication with Appellee in violation of the Edwards rule.

Note: This is a government appeal under Article 62.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in two cases on Wednesday, February 24, 2016:

At 10 a.m.: United States v. Hackler (before the CCA en banc)

Case summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant contrary to his pleas, of one specification of assault consummated by battery and one specification of adultery, in violation of Articles 128 and 134, UCMJ, 10 USC §§ 928 and 934 (2012). The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to pay grade E-1, ninety days hard labor without confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the bad-conduct discharge, ordered the sentence executed.

Issue: Equal protection requires the law to treat similarly-situated individuals alike. The offense of adultery treats heterosexual and homosexual servicemembers disparately in two ways: 1) adultery applies only to heterosexuals by requiring sexual intercourse for criminal liability and punishment to attach; 2) adultery denies homosexuals the same marriage-fostering enforcement of fidelity afforded heterosexual servicemembers. The UCMJ has no equivalent offense for same-sex sexual relations. Does equal protection require setting aside appellant’s conviction for adultery?

At 1 p.m.: United States v. Chikaka

Case summary: A panel of members with enlisted representation sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant contrary to his pleas, of attempted abusive sexual contact, orders violations, wrongful sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, obstructing justice, indecent language, and adultery in violation of Articles 80, 92, 120, and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 892, 920, and 934 (2012). The members sentenced the appellant to a reduction to pay grade E-1, twelve years’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge, order it executed.

Issues:
I. Only relevant evidence is admissible. Over defense objection, the military judge admitted on the merits “operation restore vigilance,” a campaign plan to “fully operationalize the commandant’s guidance” from the heritage tour; a photo of the commandant posing with an accuser’s grandfather as sentencing evidence; and then allowed appellant’s commanding officer to testify that it was important for the members to adjudge a harsh sentence in this case. Did the military judge abuse his discretion?
II. Disjunctive pleading is improper because it creates ambiguity and may fail to inform an accused of what he must defend against. Here, the Government charged 18 specifications with alternate theories of liability, all pleaded disjunctively to create 65 possible theories of liability. Did the members’ general verdict of guilt without exceptions or substitutions create an ambiguous verdict that prevents this court from reviewing this case for factual sufficiency?

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on February 23, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: I’m unable to access the Army CCA’s website.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Barnes, No. 38720, on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, at 2 p.m. No additional information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 24, 2016.

This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General was granted another extension of time to file a response to the petition in Katso. I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on February 23, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: I’m unable to access the Army CCA’s website.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on February 17, 2016.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on February 24, 2016.

This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on February 23, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on February 17, 2016.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in two cases this week: United States v. Young on Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 10 a.m., and United States v. Rodriguez on Wednesday, February 3, 2016, at 11 a.m. No additional case information is available on the CCA’s website.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The NMCCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at SCOTUS: The Court denied the cert petition in Schloff. The Court extended the time for filing a response in Sullivan to February 29.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking four cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on February 23, 2016.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on February 17, 2016.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on February 2, 2016.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The NMCCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.