*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

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 Tenth Cir. 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. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Richard L. Ireland (Ireland), appearing pro se, 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 order 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 16 and five

charges of committing indecent acts with a female under 16 in a

general court-martial at Osan Air Force Base, Republic of Korea. 

On direct appeal, the United States Air Force Court of

Military Review affirmed Ireland’s conviction. United States v.

Ireland, CMA 27476 (July 6, 1989). The United States Court of

Military Appeals denied discretionary review. United States v.

Ireland, 29 M.J. 345 (CMA 1989). Thereafter, Ireland filed a

petition for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered

evidence and fraud on the court. The petition was denied by the

Judge Advocate General.

In 1993, while confined in the United States Disciplinary

Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Ireland filed this § 2241

petition, wherein he alleged that newly discovered evidence had

become available which established his innocence, the prosecution

withheld exculpatory information, and he received ineffective

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 establishing his

innocence, denying his allegation that the prosecution withheld

exculpatory information, and ignoring his allegation of fraud on

the court.

In Lips v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks,
- 3 -

997 F.2d 808 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (1994),

we held that a federal court’s review of a military court-martial

proceeding is limited to determining whether the petitioner was

given a full and fair hearing and whether his claims were fully and

fairly considered. Id. at 811. If an issue was presented to a

military tribunal and was disposed of, even summarily, the issue

has been given full and fair consideration. Watson v. McCotter,

782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 (1986).

In this case, Barnhardt presented his ineffective assistance

of counsel claim to the United States Air Force Court 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). With respect 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 Advocate General

denied Barnhardt’s petition for a new trial. Id. at 3-9.

Therefore, all of Barnhardt’s claims were given full and fair

consideration by the military courts.

After careful review of the record, we affirm for the 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