## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 15,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT E DWI N M AR K AC KE RMAN,

M o v a n t, v. J U A N I T A N O V A K , W ar den,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 1464

OR DER B efor e KELLY , HENR Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. P ER CURI AM .

M ovantE dw i n M ark A ckerm an has fi l ed a mot i on forl eave t o fi l e a s econd o r su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , req u e stin g p e rm iss io n to fil e a thir d co ll ateral ch all en g e to h is 19 9 5 m il it aryco n v ict ion . M r. A ck erm an ’s m o tio n is d is m is s e d a s u n n e c e s s a ry. I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound I n 1995, M r . A ckerm an pl eade d gui l tyi n gener al “court - m ar t i al pr ocee di ngs t o r ape a nd l ar cenyi n vi ol at i on of A r t i cl es 120 and 121 of the- 2-

U ni form C ode of M i l i t aryJ us t i ce. ” A cke r m an v. Novak , 66 F. A pp’ x 158, 159 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). H e w a s s e n ten c e d , in p a rt, t o life im p riso n m e n t w ith c o n fin e m e n t s u s p e n d e d a f te r t w e n ty-s e v e n y e a rs . Id. Th e Un i t e d S t a t e s Ar my C o u rto f C ri m inal A p p ea ls affirm ed h is co n v ict ion s, an d the U n it ed S tat es C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r t h e A rm e d F o rc e s d e n ie d h is p e titio n fo r r e v ie w . Id . M r. A ck erm an fil ed h is fir st ha b ea s p eti ti o n ch all en g ing h is m il it ary convi ct i on i n 2000. H e err oneous l yfi l ed the pet i t i on under§ 2254, and the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ycons trued the fi l i ng as a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as c o rp u s file d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . A cke r m an , 6 6 F . A p p ’x a t 1 5 9 n .1 . In th is fi r s thabea s pet i t i on, M r . A ckerm an cl ai m ed: “( 1) the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h hi s gui l t ; ( 2) ther e w as del ayi n the fi l i ng of cha r ges ; and ( 3) he w as unabl e t o confr onthi s acc us eratthe pr etr i al hear i ng and couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ecton t hatbas i s . ” Id . at 1 6 0 . T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied th e w rit, a n d th is c o u rt a ffir m e d . Id . at160- 61. In 2 0 0 1 , M r. A c k e rm a n filed a se c o n d h a b e a s p e tit io n c h a llen g in g h is m i l i t aryconvi ct i on. A gai n, he i ncorr ect l yfi l ed i tunder§ 2254, and the d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly c o n s tru e d it a s a § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . A cke r m an v. Zenon , 150 F. A pp’ x 772, 773 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . I n thi s s econd pe t i t i on, M r . A ckerm an cl ai m ed: 1) the vi ct i m fai l ed t o des cr i be hi m as the s us pect ; 2) he w as notr ead his Mi r anda r i ght s ; 3) evi dence w as avai l abl e, butw as nots ubm i t t ed, thatw oul d have e s t abl i s hed he w as noti dent i fi ed i n a phy s i cal- 3-

lin e -u p ; 4 ) n o D N A e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted th a t w o u ld id e n tifyh im as the s us pect ; 5) he w as notal l ow ed t o confr ontthe vi ct i m atthe pr etr i al pr ocee di ngs ; 6) the comm andi ng gener al i l l egal l yi nfl uence d the negot i at i ons of hi s pl ea; and 7) ther e exi s t s new l y - di s cover ed evi dence t hatt he vi ct i m fai l ed t o i dent i fytw o t at t oos on hi s upper b o d ya s id e n tifia b le m a rk s . Id . at774. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th e p e titio n , a n d th is c o u rt d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l. Id . at774- 76. W e hel d thatM r . A ckerm an’ s fi r s t , thi r d and fourth cl ai m s had been r ai s ed i n hi s fi r s tpet i t i on and w er e barr ed as s ucce s s i ve abs enta s how i ng of fa c tu a l in n o c e n c e , w h ic h h e c o u ld n o t s h o w b e c a u s e h e p le a d e d g u ilty. Id . a t 7 7 5 . Fur ther , hi s r emai ni ng cl ai m s had notbeen r ai s ed befor e the mi l i t arycour t s and w e re d e e m e d w a iv e d . Id . T hi s cour tchar act er i zed M r . A ckerm an’ s appea l as f ri v o lo u s . Id . at775- 76. I I . Sect i on 2241 i s t he Pr operM eans t o C hal l enge M i l i t aryC onvi ct i on M r . A ckerm an has now fi l ed a mot i on i n thi s cour ts eeki ng author i zat i on to fil e a sec o n d o r suc ce ssive § 2 2 5 4 h ab ea s p eti ti o n to ch all en g e, fo r th e third t i m e, hi s m i l i t arygui l ty - pl ea c onvi ct i on. A s w e have now tw i ce i nform ed M r. A c k e rm a n , h o w e v e r, th e p ro p e r m e a n s fo r h im to c o llate ra llyc h a llen g e h is 19 95 m i l i t arycon vict i on i s t o fil e a § 2 24 1 p et i t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus, n o t a § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . S e e C lin to n v . G o ldsm ith , 526 U . S. 529, 537 n. 11 ( 1999) (c iti n g § 2 2 4 1 (c ) a s a u th o rityfo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t h a b e a s c o rp u s is a v a ilab le to se rv ice m e m b e rs in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to a c o u rt-m a rtial); Wi tham v. Uni t edFeder al ci vi l court s have onl yl i m i t ed author i tyt o r evi ew court - m ar t i al 1 p ro c e e d in g s , h o w e v e r. See Burns v. Wi ls on , 3 4 6 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 3 9 -4 2 , 1 4 4 (1 9 5 3 ). If the m i l i t arycou rt s have f ull yand fai rl yrevi ew ed the m i l i t arypri soner’ s cl ai m s, th e fe d e ra l c iv il c o u rt s c a n n o t r e v ie w th e m . See Rober ts v. C al lahan , 321 F. 3d 9 9 4 , 9 9 5 -9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (s e tti n g fo rth fo u r fa c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d in d eterm ining w h ethe r a fed era l ci v il co u rtca n rev iew a c o u rt -m arti al pro ce ed ing ). A mo t i o n t o v a c a t e , s e ta s i d e o rc o rr e c th i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. 2 § 2255 i s al s o unavai l abl e t o M r . A ckerm an “be caus e the court - m ar t i al im m ed iat elyd issolve s af ter sen tenc ing an d is no lon g er a v ail ab le l ater to h ea r a col l at er al att ack on the s ent ence . ” Wi tham , 355 F. 3d at505.

- 4- Stat es , 355 F. 3d 501, 505 ( 6th C i r . 2004) ( not i ng that§ 2241 i s the pr operm eans to c o llate ra llya ttac k a c o u rt-m a rtial c o n v ictio n ). U n d e r § 2 2 4 1 , fe d e ra l co u rts have a uthor i tyt o i s s ue a ha beas corpus w r i tt o pr i s oner s “i n cus t odyunderorby c o lo r o f th e a u th o rity o f th e U n ited S tate s.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 (c )(1 ). In c o n tra st, 1 § 2254 i s t he means byw hi ch a pr i s oner“i n cus t odypur s uantt o the j udgm entof a [ s ]t a te c o u rt ” c a n s e e k h a b e a s re lie f f ro m a s ta te -c o u rt ju d g m e n t. See 2 8 U. S . C. § 2254( a) . M r . A ckerm an s eeks t o chal l enge hi s m i l i t aryconvi ct i on; t hus , § 2254 i s i nappl i cabl e. 2 I I I . I s C i r cui tC our tA uthor i zat i on R equi r ed t o Fi l e a Sec ond § 2241 Pet i t i on? A . G e n e ra lly U n d er the A n ti terrori sm an d E ffec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct (A E D P A ), author i zat i on fr om the appr opr i at e ci r cui tcourtof appe al s i s r equi r ed befor e a stat e p ri so n er m ayfil e a sec o n d o r suc ce ssive § 2 2 5 4 h ab ea s p eti ti o n , o r be fo re a fe d e ra l p ri s o n e r m a yfile a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 ); id . § 2255 par a. 8. T hi s courthas noty etaddr es s ed,- 5-

how ever , w hethera s i m i l arappel l at e- courtpr e- author i zat i on r equi r ementappl i es befor e a pr i s onerm ayfi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve w r i tof habe as corpus under§ 2241. P rio r to A E D P A , this c o u rt h e ld in G e o rg e v . P e rr ill , 62 F. 3d 333, 334 ( 10th C i r . 1995) , t hat“a s ect i on 2241 pet i t i on w hi ch pr es ent s no new gr ounds for r el i ef i s s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al as a s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on unl es s the ends of j us t i ce r e qu i r e c on s i de r a t i on of t he mer i t s . ” W e ba s e d thi s ho l di ng on the pr e - A ED PA ver s i on of 28 U . S. C . § 2244( a) , w hi ch s t at ed: N o ci r cui tordi s tr i ctj udge s hal l be r equi r ed t o ent er t ai n an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus t o i nqui r e i nt o the det ent i on o f a p e rso n p u rsu a n t to a ju d g m e n t o f a c o u rt o f

th e U n ited S tate s if i tappea r s thatthe l egal i tyof s uch det ent i on has been de t erm i ned by a ju d g e o r c o u rt o f

th e U n ited S tate s o n a p rio r a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit of habe as corpus and the pet i t i on pr es ent s no new gr ound not h e re to fo re p re se n ted a n d d e ter m in e d , an d th e ju d g e o r c o u rt is s a t i s fi e d th a tt h e e n d s o f j u s t i c e w i l l n o tb e s e r v e d b y s u c h i n q u i ry. G eorge , 6 2 F . 3 d at 33 4 (qu o ti n g p re-A E D P A v ersion o f § 2 2 4 4 (a)). A E D P A a m e n d e d § 2 2 4 4 (a ) in 1 9 9 6 to n o w re a d : N o ci r cui tordi s tr i ctj udge s hal l be r equi r ed t o ent er t ai n an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus t o i nqui r e i nt o the det ent i on o f a p e rso n p u rsu a n t to a ju d g m e n t o f a c o u rt o f

th e U n ited S tate s if i tappea r s thatthe l egal i tyof s uch det ent i on has been de t erm i ned by a ju d g e o r c o u rt o f

th e U n ited S tate s o n a p rio r a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s , except as provi ded i n se ct i on 2255 . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (a) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he r efe r ence t o § 2255 i n the A E D PA - amended ver s i on of § 2244( a) appea r s t o i ncorpor at e the appe l l at e pr e- author i zat i on gat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s of28 U . S . C . § 4 51 st at es: 3 A s us ed i n t hi s t i t l e:

Th e t e r m “ c o u r to f

th e Un i t e d S t a t e s ” i n c l u d e s t h e S u p r e me (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 6- § 2255 par a. 8, w hi ch s et s for th the gr ounds upon w hi ch a c i r cui tcour tm ay author i ze a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on, and, i n tur n, i ncorpor at es the pr e- author i zat i on pr ocedur es i n § 2244( b) ( 3) . W e do notdeci de thi s i s s ue, how ever , beca us e w e conc l ude, forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , that§ 2244( a) d o e s n o t a p p ly w h e n a p ri s o n e r i s c h a lle n g in g a m ilita ry c o u rt -m a rt ia l c o n v ic tio n . B . Sect i on 2241 C hal l enge t o a M i l i t aryC our t - M ar t i al C onvi ct i on Sect i on 2244( a) appl i es byi t s t erm s onl yt o a pet i t i onerw ho i s i n det ent i on “pur s uantt o a j udgm entof a c our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ” See Rosales - G ar ci a v. Hol land , 322 F. 3d 386, 398- 99, 398 n. 13 ( 6th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng that§ 2244( a) d o e s n o t ap p lyto a § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n b ro u g h t b ya n IN S d e tain e e ); see also B ar api nd v. R eno , 2 2 5 F . 3 d 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 1 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( s a me , h o l d i n g th a tI NS det ai nee i s noti n cus t odypur s uantt o a j udgm entof a “ courtof the U ni t ed S tate s” ). U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 5 1 , w h ich is a d e fin iti o n a p p lica b le to a ll o f T itl e 28 of the U ni t ed St at es C ode, the t erm “courtof the U ni t ed St at es ” i s defi ned as “the Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , cour t s of appe al s , di s tr i ctcour t s . . . and a n yc o u rt c re a ted b yA c t o f C o n g re ss th e ju d g e s o f w h ich a re e n tit led to h o ld offi ce dur i ng good behavi or . ” Id . T he phr as e “c ourtof the U ni t ed St at es , ” as 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 C o u rt o f

th e U n ited S tate s, c o u rts o f a p p e a ls, d istric t co u rts cons t i tut ed bychapt er5 of thi s t i t l e, i ncl udi ng t he C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade a nd anycour tcr eat ed byA ctof C ongr es s the jud g es o f w h ich a re e n ti tl ed to h o ld o ffice d u ri n g g o o d b eh av ior. * * * T he t erm “j udge of the U ni t ed St at es ” i ncl udes j udges of the court s of appe al s , di s tr i ctcour t s , C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade a nd an yco u rtcre ated b yA ct of C o n g ress, th e jud g es o f w h ich a re en ti tl ed to h o ld o ffice d u ri n g g o o d b eh av ior.

“ Th e j u d i c i a l P o we ro f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s , s h a l l b e v e s t e d i n o n e s u p r e me 4 C o u rt, an d in su c h in fe rio r C o u rts a s th e C o n g re ss m a yf ro m tim e to tim e o rd a in a n d e sta b lish ,” a n d “ [ t]h e Ju d g e s, b o th o f th e su p re m e a n d in fe rio r C o u rts, sh a ll hol d thei rO ffi ces dur i ng good B ehavi our. . . . ” U . S. C ons t . , art . I I I , § 1.

- 7- used i n T i t l e 28 and § 45 1, has been held t o den ote A rt i cl e II I cou rt s, w ho se 4 ju d g e s h a v e life te n u re a n d m a yb e re m o v e d o n ly b yim p e a c h m e n t. See In re Volpert , 110 F. 3d 494, 498 ( 7th C i r . 1997) ( s t at i ng that“bec aus e the ‘ good b e h a v io r’ la n g u a g e c o n tain e d in § 4 5 1 m irro rs th a t co n tain e d in A rticle III, it is re a so n a b le to in fe r th a t th e p h ra se ‘c o u rt[ s] o f th e U n ited S tate s’ d e n o tes A rticle I I I cour t s w hos e j udges have l i fe t enur e and maybe r emoved onl yby i m peac hm ent ” ( ci t i ng P er r ot on v. G r ay ( In r e Perr ot on) , 958 F. 2d 889, 893 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 )); s ee als o N. P i pel i ne C ons tr . C o. v. Mar athon P i pe Li ne C o. , 4 5 8 U . S . 5 0 , 5 9 (19 8 2 ) (“T h e ‘g o o d B eh av iou r’ C laus e g u ara n tees tha t A rt . III jud g es sh all enjoyli fe tenu re, subject on lyto rem o v al byim p ea ch m en t. ”). T he co urthas no tbeen dir ect ed to, no r has i tbeen able t o locat e, anycase dir ect l yho l ding t hat a m i l i t aryj ust i ce cou rti s not a “courtof the U nit ed S t at es”- 8-

as th at t erm is de fin ed in § 4 5 1 an d u sed in § 2 2 4 4 (a). T h e C o u rto f M il it ary A p p e a ls, n o w th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e A rm e d S e rv ice s, d id hol d thatthe t erm “j udge of the U ni t ed St at es , ” as defi ned i n § 451 as “j udges o f . . . an yc o u rt c re a ted b yA c t o f C o n g re ss , the ju d g e s o f w h ich a re e n tit led to h o ld o ffic e d u ri n g g o o d b e h a v io r,” is in a p p lic a b le to m ilita ry ju d g e s . Uni t ed S ta tes v . R a c h e ls , 6 M . J . 232, 234 ( C . M . A . 1979) . T he governm ent ’ s pos i t i on, g iv e n in re sp o n se to th e c o u rt’s r e q u e st fo r su p p lem e n tal b rie fin g , is th a t a m i l i t aryj us t i ce c our ti s nota “c our tof the U ni t ed St at es ” under§ 2244( a) and § 451 beca us e mi l i t aryj udges ar e notent i t l ed t o hol d offi ce dur i ng good behavi or . W e agr ee w i th the governm ent ’ s pos i t i on. “M i l i t aryl aw . . . i s a j ur i s prudence w hi ch exi s t s s epar at e and apartfr om the l aw w hi ch governs i n ourfede r al j udi ci al es t abl i s hm ent . ” B ur ns v. Wi ls on , 346 U . S. 137, 140 ( 1953) . M i l i t arycour t s ar e l egi s l at i ve court s , es t abl i s hed un der A rt i cl e I, S ect i on 8, C l ause 14 of the C on st i tuti on , w hich grant s C on gress the pow er“[t ] o m ake Rul es forthe G overnm entand R egul at i on of the l and and naval For ces . ” See, e. g. , G os a v. Mayden , 4 1 3 U . S . 6 6 5 , 6 8 6 (19 7 3 ) (“a m il it ary tr i bunal i s an A r t i cl e I l egi s l at i ve courtw i th j ur i s di ct i on i ndepende ntof j udi ci al p o w e rc r e a t e d a n d d e fi n e d b y A r t i c l e I I I ” ) . P u r s u a n tt o i t s A r t i c l e I a u th o r i ty, s ee Sol or i o v. Uni t ed Stat es , 483 U . S. 435, 438- 39 ( 1987) , C ongr es s enac t ed the U ni form C ode of M i l i t aryJ us t i ce, 10 U . S. C . §§ 801 t o 950, w hi ch es t abl i s hed- 9-

“an i nt egr at ed s y s t em of m i l i t arycour t s and r evi ew pr ocedur es . ” Schl es i ngerv. C ounci lm an , 4 2 0 U .S . 7 3 8 , 7 5 8 (1 9 7 5 ). “A tthe tr i al l evel ar e the court s - m ar t i al . . . . ” Weis s v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 1 0 U .S . 1 6 3 , 1 6 7 (1 9 9 4 ). C o u rts-m a rtial a re a d h o c trib u n a ls th a t ar e c a lled in to exis t ence b yorder of a co m m and er, cal l ed a co nv ening au tho ri ty , for the p urpose o f c o n s id e ri n g a s e t o f

c h a rg e s th a t th e c o m m a n d e r h a s re fe rr e d to th e c o u rt . See Manualf

orC our ts - Mar t i al, Uni t ed Stat es , R u le s fo r C o u rt s -M a rt ia l ( R .C .M .) 504( a) ( 2005 ed. ) ( “A court - m art i al i s cr eat ed bya conve ni ng or derof the conveni ng author i ty . ”) , and R . C . M . 601( a) ( “R efe rr al i s the or derof a c onveni ng author i tythatchar ges agai ns tan ac cus ed w i l l be tr i ed bya s peci fi ed c o u rt-m a rtial.” ); s ee als o McC laughr y v. D em i ng , 186 U . S. 49, 64 ( 1902) ( a court - m art i al “i s a s peci al bodyconvene d fora s peci fi c purpos e, and w hen that p u rpo se is ac co m p li sh ed it s d u ti es a re c o n clud ed an d the c o u rtis dissolv ed ”); Wi tham , 355 F. 3d at505 ( “G ener al cour t s - m ar t i al ar e ad hoc pr ocee di ngs w hi ch d is s o lv e a f

te r t h e p u rp o s e fo r w h ic h th e yw e re c o n v e n e d h a s b e e n re s o lv e d ” ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt, n o tin g th a t “[ t]h e m ili tar yis a sp e c ializ e d so c ietyse p a ra te fr om ci vi l i an s oci etyw i th l aw s and tr adi t i ons of i t s ow n, ” has r ecogni zed that “the ac t s of a c our tm art i al , w i thi n the s cope of i t s j ur i s di ct i on and duty , cannot b e c o n tr o lle d o r r e v ie w e d in th e c iv il c o u rt s , b yw ri t o f p ro h ib itio n o r o th e rw is e ,” w ith th e lim ited e x c e p tio n fo r c o llate ra l atta c k se e k in g a d e c lar a tio n th a t a- 10-

ju d g m e n t is v o id “ b e c a u se o f lac k o f ju risd ictio n o r so m e o th e r e q u a lly fundament al defe ct . ” Schl es i nger , 4 2 0 U .S . a t 7 4 6 -4 7 , 7 5 7 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). A gener al court s - m art i al , w hi ch i s the onl ytype of c our t - m ar t i al “author i zed t o i m pos e pena l t i es of m or e than one y ear ’ s i ncar cer at i on, ” Ham dan v . R u m sfe ld , 126 S. C t . 2749, 2805 ( 2006) ( B r ey er , J . , concurr i ng) , “cons i s t s of ei thera mi l i t aryj udge and a tl eas tfi ve mem ber s , orthe j udge al one i f the ac cus ed s o r eques t s , ” Weiss , 5 1 0 U . S . at 16 7 ; 10 U . S . C . § 8 1 6 (1). “T h e m il it ary j udge . . . act s as pr es i di ng offi cerata . . . gener al cour t - m ar t i al . ” Weiss , 51 0 U . S . at16 7 (ci t i ng 10 U . S . C . § 8 26 ). “T he judge rul es on all l egal quest i on s, and i ns truct s court - m art i al m ember s r egar di ng t he l aw and pr ocedur es t o be fol l ow ed. ” Id . ( ci t i ng 10 U . S. C . § 851) . A m i l i t aryj udge “mayper form s uch d u ties o n lyw h e n h e is a ss ig n e d a n d d ire c tlyre sp o n sib le to th e Ju d g e A d v o c a te G ener al , orhi s des i gnee . . . . ” 10 U . S. C . § 826( c) . H e “mayper form dut i es of a j ud i ci al or nonj ud i ci al natur e otherthan tho se r el at i ng t o h i s pri m arydu tyas a m ili tar yju d g e o f

a g e n e ra l co u rt-m a rtial w h e n su c h d u ties a re a ss ig n e d to h im byorw i th the appr oval of thatJ udge A dvocat e G ener al orhi s des i gnee. ” Id . In s h o rt , a m ilita ry ju d g e m u s t b e d e ta ile d to e a c h g e n e ra l c o u rt -m a rt ia l, Weiss , 5 1 0 U .S . at 1 7 5 (“ m ili tar yju d g e s d o n o t h a v e a n yin h e re n t ju d icia l au th o rity s epar at e fr om a court - m art i al t o w hi ch theyhave be en det ai l ed, ” ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ) , and ca n be r eadi l yas s i gned orr eas s i gned t o adj udi cat e ca s es , or- 11-

tra n sfe rre d to e n tirelyn o nju d icia l tas k s, a t th e d isc re tio n o f th e Ju d g e A d v o c a te G e n e ra l. Id . at176. In c o n tr ast t o A rt icl e III j u d g es w h o h o ld o ffice d u ri n g g o o d b eh av ior, A rt ic le I m ilita ry ju d g e s d o n o t h o ld o ffic e d u ri n g g o o d b e h a v io r. See i d. , 510 U . S. at168 ( “M i l i t arytr i al j udges . . . do nots erve forfi xed t erm s and may per form j udi ci al dut i es onl yw hen as s i gned t o do s o bythe appr opr i at e J udge A d v o c a te G e n e ra l.”); i d. at 19 3 n . 8 (S o u ter, J. , co n cu rri n g ) (no ti n g that “m il it ary ju d g e s a re re m o v a b le fo r a b ro a d a rra yo f re a so n s” ); O ’ C al lahan v. P arker , 395 U . S. 258, 264 ( 1969) ( “The pr es i di ng offi cerata court - m ar t i al i s nota j udge w h o se o bjec tiv itya n d in d e p e n d e n c e a re p ro tec ted b yten u re a n d u n d im in ish a b le s a la ry a n d n u rt u re d b yth e ju d ic ia l tr a d itio n . . . .” ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by So lo rio , 4 8 3 U .S . at 4 3 6 ; Uni t ed Stat es ex r el . Toth v. Q uar l es , 350 U . S. 11, 17 ( 1955) ( “[T] he C ons t i tut i on does notpr ovi de l i fe t enur e forthos e per form i ng jud ici al fu n cti o n s in m il it arytr ial s. T h eyare ap p o inted b ym il it aryco m m an d ers a n d m a yb e re m o v e d a t w ill .”); cf . In re G rabil lC orp . , 976 F. 2d 1126, 1129 ( 7th C i r . 1992) ( E as t erbr ook, J . , di s s ent i ng fr om deni al of r ehea r i ng en banc ) (no ti n g that jud g es in the m il it aryd o n o t ho ld o ffice “ d u ri n g g o o d B eh av ior”). R eturni ng then t o the def i ni t i on of a “ courtof the U ni t ed St at es ” under § 451, w e conc l ude that , al though m i l i t aryj us t i ce c our t s ar e es t abl i s hed byan A ct of C ongr es s , m i l i t aryj udges ar e notent i t l ed t o hol d offi ce dur i ng “good b e h a v io r,” a n d a re n o t, th e re fo re “ c o u rt [ s ] o f th e U n ite d S ta te s ” u n d e r § 4 5 1 .- 12-

T h is p o sitio n is c o n sis ten t w ith th is c irc u it’s h o ld in g th a t a b a n k ru p tcy co u rt is no ta “cou rtof the U nit ed S t at es” und er § 451 and 28 U . S . C . § 1 92 7 b ecause b a n k ru p t c yj u d g e s h o l d o ffi c e fo ra t e r m o f fo u r t e e n y e a r s , n o tu n d e rl i fe t i me a p p o in tm e n t. Jo n e s v . B a n ko f Sa n te Fe (In r e C o u r te sy In n s , L td .) , 40 F. 3d 1084, 1086 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . I ti s al s o cons i s t entw i th otherci r cui t s thathave concl uded thatcourt s w hos e j udges ar e notent i t l ed t o hol d offi ce dur i ng “good beh avior ” do no tcom e w i thin the d efi nit i on of a “ cou rtof the U nit ed S t at es” u n d e r § 4 5 1 a n d , th u s , T itle 2 8 . S ee No b les v. C o m m ’r , 105 F. 3d 436, 438 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng thata t ax courtj udge i s nota “j udge of the U ni t ed S tat es” u n d er § 4 5 1 b ec au se it s jud g es se rve fo r a fixed fiftee n -y ea r t erm ); Mat thew s v. Uni t ed Stat es , 72 Fed. C l . 274, 277 ( 2006) ( not i ng thatthe U ni t ed St at es C our tof Feder al C l ai m s does notm eetthe def i ni t i on of a “ courtof the U ni t ed St at es ” under§ 451, beca us e, even though i tw as cr eat ed byan A ctof C ongr es s , i t s j udges w er e appoi nt ed forl i m i t ed t erm s and w er e not , ther efor e, en ti tl ed to h o ld o ffice d u ri n g g o o d b eh av ior, b u t no ti n g that 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 5 0 3 (b), g ra n te d c o u rt a u th o ri ty to a c t u n d e r s o m e s p e c ifie d p ro v is io n s o f T itle 2 8 ). T h u s, u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (a ), a p riso n e r c o n v icte d b ya m ili tar yc o u rt-m a rtial is noti n det ent i on “pur s uantt o a j udgm entof a c our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ” Id . B eca us e § 2244( a) does notappl yt o M r . A ckerm an, ther e i s no bas i s t o concl ude- 13-

thathe nee ds t o obt ai n author i zat i on fr om thi s cour tt o fi l e hi s pr opos ed § 2241 p e tit io n in th e d istric t co u rt. T h e r e fo r e , w e D I S M I S S M r . A c k e r m a n ’ s m o t i o n fo rl e a v e a s u n n e c e s s a r y.