1

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018

The Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces submit 

their Annual Report on the administration of the Court and military justice during the 

October 2017 Term of Court to the Committees on Armed Services of the United States 

Senate and the United States House of Representatives, and to the Secretaries of 

Defense, Homeland Security, Army, Navy, and Air Force in accordance with Article 

146a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Title 10, United States Code, § 946a.

After Chief Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann completed his 15-year term on July 

31, 2017, the Court was reduced to a quorum of four currently appointed Judges from 

August 1, 2017, to February 1, 2018. To conduct the essential business of the Court 

and hear the cases set for argument on the master docket, Chief Judge Scott W. Stucky 

called upon the Senior Judges of the Court to serve, pursuant to Article 142(e), UCMJ. 

Senior Judge Andrew S. Effron heard thirteen cases. Senior Judge Walter T. Cox III 

heard seven cases. Senior Judge Charles E. “Chip” Erdmann heard three cases. The 

Court resumed normal operations with a full complement of five currently-appointed 

Judges upon the appointment and taking of the Judicial Oath by Judge Gregory E. 

Maggs on February 2, 2018. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

The number and status of completed and pending cases are set forth in the 

attached statistical report and graphs for the period from October 1, 2017, to September 

30, 2018. Additional information pertaining to specific opinions is available from the 

Court’s published opinions and Daily Journal. Other dispositions may be found in the 

Court’s official reports, the Military Justice Reporter, and on the Court’s website. The 

Court’s website also contains a consolidated digest of past opinions of the Court, 

information on the Court’s history and jurisdiction, the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 

previous Annual Reports, a schedule of upcoming hearings, audio recordings of past 

hearings, and information on clerkship opportunities, bar admission, electronic filing, 

and the Court’s library.

During the October 2017 Term of Court, the Court met its goal of issuing opinions 

in all cases scheduled for hearing as business of the Term prior to the end of the Term

and heard two cases in advance of the following Term. An informal summary of 

selected decisions is set forth in Appendix A. 
2

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

No changes were made to the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure during 

the October 2017 Term of Court.

BAR OF THE COURT

During the October 2017 Term, 144 attorneys were admitted to practice before 

the Court, bringing the cumulative total of admissions to the Bar of the Court to 37,085.

JUDICIAL OUTREACH

In furtherance of a practice established in 1987, the Court scheduled special 

sessions and heard oral arguments outside of its permanent courthouse in Washington, 

D.C. during the October 2017 Term of Court. The practice, known as “Project 

Outreach,” was developed as part of a public awareness program to demonstrate the 

operation of a Federal Court of Appeals and the military’s criminal justice system. The 

Court conducted hearings during this period, with the consent of the parties, at the 

Cornell University Law School in Ithaca, NY, the University of Texas School of Law in 

Austin, TX, and at Fort Hood in Killeen, TX. In September of 2018, the Court heard the 

first two arguments for the following Term, (prior to the formal start of the Term on 

October 1, 2018), in order to timely honor commitments made to the Federal Bar 

Association and Fordham University School of Law. These cases will be decided in the

2018 Term of Court.

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM

On March 7 and 8, 2018, the Court held its Continuing Legal Education and 

Training Program at the American University Washington College of Law in 

Washington, D.C. The program opened with welcoming remarks from the Honorable 

Scott W. Stucky, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He 

preceded the following speakers: Colonel Frederic L. Borch III, U.S. Army (Retired), 

Regimental Historian and Archivist at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School; Brenner M. Fissell, Assistant Professor of Law at the Hofstra University Maurice 

A. Deane School of Law; Guyora Binder, Distinguished Professor and Vice Dean at the 

State University of New York Buffalo Law School; Colonel Martin Mitchell, U.S. Air 

Force (Retired), Commissioner to Judge Kevin A. Ohlson, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces; Andreas Kuersten, former law clerk to Chief Judge Scott

W. Stucky, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; Justice Steven H. 
3

David of the Supreme Court of Indiana; Dwight Sullivan, Senior Associate Deputy 

General Counsel (Military Justice and Personnel Policy), Department of Defense; 

Elizabeth L. “Liz” Lippy, Associate Director of the Trial Advocacy Program at the 

American University Washington College of Law; and Major Jenna Reed, U.S. Marine 

Corps (Reserve). 

Scott W. Stucky

Chief Judge

Margaret A. Ryan

Judge

Kevin A. Ohlson

Judge

John E. Sparks, Jr.

Judge

Gregory E. Maggs

Judge
4

APPENDIX A—SELECTED DECISIONS

United States v. Pugh, 77 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2017), holding that Air Force Instruction 90-

507, while possibly having a valid military purpose, is overly and inappropriately broad 

as it pertains to FDA-approved food products.

United States v. Hennis, 77 M.J. 7 (C.A.A.F. 2017), holding that there is no 

constitutional, statutory, or regulatory basis for the Court to grant a request for an 

enhanced appellate defense team or funding for learned counsel, a mitigation specialist, 

and a fact investigator in a capital case.

United States v. Jacobsen, 77 M.J. 81 (C.A.A.F. 2017), holding that mere compliance 

with the certification requirements of Article 62, UCMJ, does not conclusively establish 

appellate jurisdiction. 

United States v. Guardado, 77 M.J. 90 (C.A.A.F. 2017), holding that the military judge’s 

instruction that the members could consider evidence of charged offenses to establish 

Appellant’s propensity to commit other charged offenses was not harmless, and that the 

government may not charge a general disorder offense if the offense is otherwise listed 

as an Article 134, UCMJ, offense.

United States v. Riesbeck, 77 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that court stacking 

based on gender, intended to influence the result of a court-martial, created error that 

was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

United States v. Honea, 77 M.J. 181 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the record was 

irredeemably muddled and precluded proper review under Article 67, UCMJ, and setting 

aside the findings and sentence and dismissing the charge and specification with 

prejudice. 

United States v. Mangahas, 77 M.J. 220 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that, where the death 

penalty could never be imposed for the offense of rape charged, the offense is not 

punishable by death for purposes of Article 43, UCMJ, in effect at the time of the 

offense. 

United States v. Blanks, 77 M.J. 239 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the military judge did 

not plainly err in providing the members with a negligent dereliction of duty instruction. 

United States v. Robinson, 77 M.J. 303 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the military judge 

did not abuse his discretion in denying the defense motion to suppress evidence 
5

obtained from Appellant’s cell phone because Appellant voluntarily consented to 

providing his passcode to investigators, and that Appellant waived any objection 

regarding the investigators exceeding the scope of the consent to search. 

United States v. Eppes, 77 M.J. 339 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the search of 

Appellant’s residence was supported by probable cause, and therefore valid. While the 

Court held that a second search of Appellant’s bags was outside the scope of the 

search authorization, the inevitable discovery doctrine applied.

United States v. Barker, 77 M.J. 377 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the improper 

admission of victim impact statements which failed to meet the requirements of R.C.M. 

1001A in a judge-alone court-martial did not substantially influence the sentence. 

United States v. Andrews, 77 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the Court of

Criminal Appeals was correct to review prosecutorial misconduct for plain error and that 

trial counsel’s statements amounted to plain, obvious error, but that there was no 

material prejudice to Appellant’s substantial rights.

United States v. Kelly, 77 M.J. 404 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the Courts of Criminal 

Appeals have the power to disapprove a mandatory minimum sentence as set forth in 

Article 56, UCMJ. 

United States v. Hardy, 77 M.J. 438 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that an unconditional guilty 

plea waives any unpreserved unreasonable multiplication of charges objection. 

United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 447 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that a court-martial is not 

prohibited from sentencing a retiree to a punitive discharge or any other punishment 

established by the President. 

United States v. Jones, 78 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that the military judge did 

not err in admitting Appellant’s statements to investigators and that, though the military 

judge improperly admitted Appellant’s coconspirator’s statement, the error was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

United States v. Barry, 78 M.J. 70 (C.A.A.F. 2018), holding that a Deputy Judge 

Advocate General can commit unlawful influence, and that the Navy Deputy Judge 

Advocate General did commit unlawful influence in this case.
6

USCAAF STATISTICAL REPORT 

OCTOBER 2017 TERM OF COURT

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2017

Master Docket 40

Petition Docket 71

Miscellaneous Docket __6

TOTAL 117

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

Master Docket 49

Petition Docket 360

Miscellaneous Docket _17

TOTAL 426

CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS

Master Docket 70 

Petition Docket 379

Miscellaneous Docket _23

TOTAL 472

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2017

Master Docket 19

Petition Docket 52

Miscellaneous Docket 0

TOTAL 71

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket 34 0 36 70

Petition Docket 0 0 379 379

Miscellaneous Docket 0 1 _22 23

TOTAL 34 1 437 472
7

MASTER DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM 40

FILINGS

Petition granted from the Petition Docket 46

Certificates filed 2

Mandatory appeals filed 0

Remanded/Returned cases 1

TOTAL 49

DISPOSITIONS

Affirmed 44

Reversed in whole or in part 9

 Certificates dismissed 0

 Other 17

TOTAL 70

PENDING AT END OF TERM

Awaiting briefs 7

Awaiting oral argument 4

Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 0

Awaiting final action 8

TOTAL 19

PETITION DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM 71

FILINGS

Petitions for grant of review filed 358

Petitions for new trial filed 1

Returned cases _ 1

TOTAL 360

DISPOSITIONS

Petitions for grant of review denied 320

Petitions for grant of review granted 46

Petitions for grant of review withdrawn 5
8

 Petitions for grant of review dismissed _ 8

TOTAL 379

PENDING AT END OF TERM

Awaiting pleadings 15

Awaiting staff review 22

Awaiting final action 15

TOTAL 52

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET SUMMARY

PENDING AT BEGINNING OF TERM 6

FILINGS

Writ appeals sought 3

Writs of habeas corpus sought 0

Writs of coram nobis sought 2

Other extraordinary relief sought 12 

TOTAL 17

DISPOSITIONS

Petitions or appeals denied 16

Petitions or appeals granted 0

Petitions or appeals dismissed 5

Petitions or appeals withdrawn 2

TOTAL 23

PENDING AT END OF TERM

Awaiting briefs 0

Awaiting staff review 0

Awaiting final action 0

TOTAL 0
9

PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALL CASES DISPOSITIONS

Begin pending 2 Denied 18

Filed 21 Granted 0

TOTAL 23 Dismissed 0

TOTAL 18

End Pending 5

MOTIONS

ALL MOTIONS DISPOSITIONS

Begin pending 2 Granted 288

Filed 332 Denied 39

TOTAL 334 Dismissed __0 

TOTAL 327

End Pending 7
10

Petition Docket Term End Pending

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

254

213

91 87

69

131

168

80

72 71

52
11

Master Docket Term End Pending

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

20

30 30

71

23

28 28

17

30

40

19
12

Oral Arguments Per Year

0

25

50

75

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

65

47

43

47

35 36

32

37

28

42

36
13

Total Opinions Per Year

0

25

50

75

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

41

37

27

32

23

34

26 26

11

19

15

65

46

43 46

33

39

32

37

29

40

35

TOTAL SEPARATE OPINIONS (CONCUR, CONCUR IN THE RESULT, AND DISSENT)

TOTAL COURT OPINIONS
14

Days from Petition Filing to Grant

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

160 162

108

61 64

81

90 94

71

83

75

Days from Petition Filing

to Oral Argument

132

114

136 131

140 131

102

129

143

208

237

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
15

Days from Oral Argument

to Final Decision

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

86 83

99

88

73

97

92

115

98 95

82
16

Days from Petition Filing

to Final Decision

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

261

241 238

206

147

205

174

243

146

299

313

MASTER DOCKET(GRANTED/CERTIFIED/CAPITAL CASES)
17

Total Petitions Filed Per Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

836 856

721

700

802 806

853

789

719

583

360