Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the broad power of the Courts of Criminal Appeals to protect an accused. See United States v. Parker, 36 MJ 269, 271 (CMA 1993). We have consistently recognized that the charter of Courts of Criminal Appeals on sentence review is to “do justice.” United States v. Claxton, 32 MJ 159, 162 (CMA 1991); United States v. Healy, 26 MJ 394, 395-96 (CMA 1988). Finally, we have consistently recognized the “broad power” of a Court of Criminal Appeals “to moot claims of prejudice by ‘affirming] only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved.’” Wheelus, 49 MJ at 288, quoting Art. 66(c); see also United States v. Higbie, 12 USCMA 298, 30 CMR 298 (1961) (<HOLDING>). However, the power of the Courts of Criminal 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing power of board of review to reduce sentence in order to moot issue whether convening authority considered a dismissed charge and specification in his review of the adjudged sentence (B) holding no jurisdiction to review order raising amount of bail and questioning jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reduce bond (C) recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard (D) holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable (E) holding that when a sentencing issue centers upon a courts statutory authority to impose a sentence rather than the courts exercise of discretion in fashioning the sentence the issue raised implicates the legality of the sentence imposed
Output (English): holding no jurisdiction to review order raising amount of bail and questioning jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reduce bond