* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicat a, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order andjudgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of Tenth Ci r. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/30/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

______ RICHARD L. IRELAND, ) ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 95-3376 ) (D.C. No. 93-3068-RDR) COL. GREGORY A. LOWE, ) (Dist. of Kansas) ) Respondent-Appellee. )

______ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

______ Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

______ After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Richard L. Ireland (Ireland), appearing prose , appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In orde r to reach the merits of this appeal, we grant Ireland’s petition for a certificate of probable cause. In November, 1988, Ireland was convicted, pursuant to guilty- 2 -

pleas, of one charge of sodomy with a child under 1 6 and five charges of committing indecent acts with a female u nder 16 in a general court-martial at Osan Air Force Base, Repub lic of Korea. On direct appeal, the United States Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed Ireland’s conviction. Uni ted States v.
Ireland , CMA 27476 (July 6, 1989). The United States Cour t of Military Appeals denied discretionary review. Unit ed States v.
Ireland , 29 M.J. 345 (CMA 1989). Thereafter, Ireland file d a petition for a new trial on the grounds of newly di scovered evidence and fraud on the court. The petition was denied by the Judge Advocate General. In 1993, while confined in the United States Discip linary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Ireland filed t his § 2241 petition, wherein he alleged that newly discovered evidence had become available which established his innocence, t he prosecution withheld exculpatory information, and he received i neffective assistance of counsel at the general court-martial. On October 31, 1995, the district court denied Ireland’s petition. On appeal, Ireland asserts that the district court erred by dismissing his claim of newly-discovered evidence e stablishing his innocence, denying his allegation that the prosecut ion withheld exculpatory information, and ignoring his allegatio n of fraud on
the court. In Lips v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary B arracks ,- 3 -

997 F.2d 808 (10th Cir. 1993), cert . denied , ___ U.S. ___ (1994), we held that a federal court’s review of a militarycourt-martial proceeding is limited to determining whether the pe titioner was given a full and fair hearing and whether his claim s were fully and fairly considered. Id . at 811. If an issue was presented to a military tribunal and was disposed of, even summari ly, the issue has been given full and fair consideration. Watsonv. McCotter , 782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir.), cert . denied , 476 U.S. 1184 (1986). In this case, Barnhardt presented his ineffective a ssistance of counsel claim to the United States Air Force Cou rt of Military Review. That court denied his claim, specifically finding that there was no indication that his trial counsel was inadequate. (ROA, ART 73 Petition for a New Trial at 73). Withrespect to his remaining claims, Barnhardt presented them to the Judge Advocate General in his petition for a new trial. Id . at 10. After a thorough and careful consideration, the Judge Advoc ate General denied Barnhardt’s petition for a new trial. Id . at 3-9. Therefore, all of Barnhardt’s claims were given ful l and fair consideration by the military courts. After careful review of the record, we affirm for t he reasons stated above and for substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order of October 31 , 1995.
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court:- 4 - James E. Barrett, Senior United States Circuit Judge