Question: Which judge did the Supreme court judge who decided Millbrook v. United States succeed?

Context articles: Pepper v. United States
Millbrook v. United States
United States v. Hamilton
Chief Justice
Lucy H. Koh
Ronald Moon
Clarence Thomas
Soraya Diase Coffelt
Michael Streit
V.L. v. E.L.

Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether a United States District Court properly handled the sentencing of a former methamphetamine dealer.
 He was originally sentenced to 24 months in prison, far shorter than what federal guidelines generally specify for crimes of that nature.
 Prosecutors appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, which affirmed the original sentence after testimony relating the defendant's rehabilitation.
 The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit again, and was again remanded.
 A different District Court judge gave him a 65-month sentence.
 The defendant then brought the case back to the Eighth Circuit, which confirmed the later ruling, and to then to the Supreme Court.
 Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the court, which ruled in favor of the defendant.
Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that holds that the Federal Tort Claims Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers.
 The unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, holds that law enforcement "employment" duties are not limited to searches, seizures of evidence, or arrests, and, as such, the petitioner can sue.
 As this case revolved around sovereign immunity waivers and not the merits, the Court did not decide upon the merits of the lawsuits.
United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge.
 The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law."
 Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those who commitment had been authorized by a court order.
 Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct.
 The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.
The Chief Justice is the presiding member of a supreme court in any of many countries with a justice system based on English common law, such as the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, the Supreme Court of Japan, the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Nepal, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the Supreme Court of Ireland, the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of the United States, and provincial or state supreme courts.
Lucy Haeran Koh (born 1968) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is a former nominee to be a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
 She is the first Asian American United States district court judge in the Northern District of California, the first district court judge of Korean descent in the United States, the first female Korean American Article III judge, and the second Korean American federal judge, after Herbert Choy of the Ninth Circuit.
Ronald T. Y. Moon (born September 4, 1940) was the Chief Justice of the Hawaii State Supreme Court in Honolulu, Hawaii.
 He served his first term from 1993 to 2003, and his second term from 2003 until retiring in August 2010.
 Moon studied at Coe College towards bachelor's degrees in psychology and sociology.
 He went on to the University of Iowa College of Law, where he obtained his doctorate of jurisprudence.
 He returned to Honolulu in 1965 and became law clerk to United States District Court Judge Martin Pence.
 He served under Pence for a year.
 In 1966, Moon joined the staff of the Prosecuting Attorney of Honolulu where he was deputy prosecutor until 1968.
 He left public service to become a partner in the law firm Libkuman, Ventura, Moon and Ayabe where he stayed until 1982.
 It was from the law firm that Governor George Ariyoshi appointed Moon to the Hawaii State Judiciary as a circuit court judge.
 Governor John Waihee then elevated Moon to the office of Associate Justice of the Hawaii State Supreme Court in 1990.
 In 1993, Moon was once again elevated to become chief justice.
Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American judge, lawyer, and government official who currently serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
 Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall and is the second African American to serve on the court.
Soraya Diase Coffelt is a lawyer and former judge of the United States Virgin Islands Superior Court.
 She was the first woman and first Hispanic from St. Thomas to serve as a judge.
 She served not only as a trial judge, but also as an appellate court judge, hearing and deciding appeals from the Superior Court on St. Croix.
 During her years of judicial service and afterwards, Diase Coffelt promoted the improvement of the local judicial system through the development of an autonomous Virgin Islands court system, which included the establishment of its own supreme court.
 Her Master’s thesis, advocating the establishment of a supreme court, was used as a guideline by Virgin Islands lawmakers to create the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands in 2004.
 Diase Coffelt also developed the V.I. High School Moot Court Competition in 1994, which is an annual, interscholastic competition for high school seniors, with winners receiving college scholarships.
 The competition has been sponsored by the Virgin Islands Bar Association and the courts.
 In May, 2013, the Virgin Islands Bar Association presented Diase Coffelt with an award for her valuable contributions to the people of the Virgin Islands.
Michael J. Streit (born 1950) is an attorney and judge from Johnston, Iowa.
 Born in Sheldon, Iowa, he received his bachelor's degree from the University of Iowa in 1972.
 In 1975, he graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law.
 He then practiced law in Chariton until 1983.
 He also served as assistant Lucas County attorney and Lucas County attorney before being appointed as a district court judge in 1983.
 Justice Streit was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 1996, and appointed to the Iowa Supreme Court in 2001.
 He was ousted from the Iowa Supreme Court in 2010 by failing to win a retention vote, after a national campaign in protest of the unanimous decision in "Varnum v. Brien", which struck down a statutory same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional.
 In 2012, Streit received a Profile in Courage Award from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.
V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.
 In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.
 However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.
 E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.
 On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.
 The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.
 V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.
 On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.