A reader on Military.com asks this question:
Q: I’m 18 years active duty with the US Navy. I was an E-6 from 2000–2009 but got busted for UCMJ violation to E-5. I fall under the High-3 plan for retirement and a lot of my friends are saying that when I retire, I will get the E-6 retirement pay, but then again, some of my friends are saying I will not — which is true?
The answer given is:
Here is an upublished opinion in the Court of Appeals, First Circuit, State of Louisana, in State v. Davis.
Note, this case was a court-martial tried under the Louisiana Code of Military Justice (a National Guard case).
La. R.S. 29:101-242, applies to all members of the state military forces when not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and while in a duty status or under a lawful order to be in a duty status. The processing of charges and all proceedings, including trial, may be conducted without regard to the duty status of the accused. La. R.S. 29:102(A) and (C).
NBC Washington reports:
Manassas resident Gene McKinney, 59, was arrested last week and charged with attempted malicious wounding for an incident that happened in Pentagon City on October 25.
McKinney allegedly picked up commuters from a slug line that Monday morning. He was driving north toward Washington when his passengers demanded to be let out of the car because he was driving erratically, according to arlnow.com.
Mercury News is reporting that United States v. Wuterich is delayed until 24 January 2011, pending a resolution of their issue of defense counsel representation. AP reports the same, as does The Canadian Press.
The up and down case of United States v. Hayes, has been decided again by NMCCA. Appellant has gained a new sentencing hearing because the NMCCA is convinced the judge was not impartial when adjudging a sentence. This is another one of those cases which arose because of comments during a bridging the gap talk with the MJ.
United States v. Moore, decided 28 October 2010.
Appellant alleges, inter alia, that assault with intent to commit rape is not a lesser-included offense of rape under United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010) and that his conviction should be set aside. We agree, and provide relief in our decretal paragraph. Because we decide the case on the basis of this assignment of error, we do not consider appellant’s other allegations.
Also a quick note about “notice.”
Air Force Times reports:
Military officials say a survey of U.S. troops and their families is finding that a majority don’t care whether gays are allowed to serve openly and think “don’t ask, don’t tell” could be done away with.
I’ve posted before about CP sentencing in federal courts. Here is a piece with links at Sentencing Law & Policy which further discusses CP related sentencing in federal courts and the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
As the sentencing guidelines for child pornography crimes have grown increasingly harsh, a strong trend has developed among federal judges to reject the proposed prison terms as draconian. Now two influential federal appellate courts — the 2nd and 3rd Circuits — have joined the trend and declared that the child pornography guidelines are seriously flawed, or at least that a trial judge wouldn’t be wrong for thinking so.
Here is a related link from SL&P. While not precisely on point I read United States v. Nerad in the context of some push back on what’s to be punished and how severely.
The Post & Email reports that Walter Fitzpatrick was arrested today, possibly after a “physical struggle.”
Marine Corps Times reports the CO of Cheery Point has been arrested off base for DUI.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
