*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the

terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 14 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

QUANLON SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES

DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 02-3062

D.C. No. 01-CV-3015-RDR

(D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Quanlon Smith sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §

2241 on two grounds. First, he asserted the military judge erred in instructing the

court-martial panel concerning use of evidence of indecent exposure misconduct
-2-

as evidence of a design or plan to commit a rape. Second, he claimed the Army

Court applied an improper standard when it upheld that instruction. The district

court dismissed the action, and Mr. Smith now appeals. We affirm.

As noted by the district court in its order in this case, the federal courts

have only limited authority to review court-martial proceedings in actions for

habeas corpus relief. Lips v. Commandant, 997 F.2d 808, 810-11 (10th Cir.

1993). If the federal court determines that the military courts gave full and fair

consideration to the claims advanced by the petitioner, the federal court must

refrain from reaching the merits, and must deny the petition. Id. An issue is

deemed to have received full and fair consideration where it was brought before

the military court and was disposed of by that court, even if summarily. Watson

v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir. 1986).

The record in this case demonstrates that the military court did in fact give

full and fair consideration to both issues raised in this appeal. The Army Court of

Criminal Appeals (“Army Court”) reviewed the jury instruction de novo and

found no error. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

(“CAAF”) subsequently summarily denied review. This is adequate under Watson

to meet the standard of full and fair consideration. 

As to the legal standard applied to the instruction by the Army Court, the

record reflects that the court applied the appropriate three-part test for
-3-

admissibility of the uncharged conduct under United States v. Huddleston, 485

U.S. 681 (1988), and United States v. Reynolds, 29 M.J. 105 (CMA 1989). The

CAAF subsequently summarily denied review. This is adequate under Watson to

meet the standard of full and fair consideration of this issue as well.

Because both issues presented here were given full and fair consideration

by the military courts, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of this action.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Circuit Judge