No. 21-920

Kalab D. Willman v. United States

Lower Court: Armed Forces
Docketed: 2021-12-22
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: appellate-procedure article-66-ucmj courts-martial due-process judicial-interpretation military-justice sentence-review sentencing statutory-interpretation uniform-code-military-justice
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2022-06-09 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the CAAF's decision prevent the CCAs from fulfilling their Congressionally imposed mandate pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866, to determine the appropriateness of sentences imposed by courts-martial based on the entire record?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) obligates the military Courts of Criminal Appeals (CCAs) to evaluate the entire record to determine whether a court-martial sentence is correct in law, correct in fact, and appropriate. In United States v. Willman, a divided Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) interpreted this mandate to preclude the CCAs from considering, for sentence appropriateness purposes, matters properly attached to the record that are used to determine whether sentences are correct in law. The Question Presented is: Does the CAAF’s decision prevent the CCAs from fulfilling their Congressionally imposed mandate pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866, to determine the appropriateness of sentences imposed by courts-martial based on the entire record? i

Docket Entries

2022-06-13
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
2022-05-24
Reply of petitioners Kalab D. Willman, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-05-10
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-04-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 10, 2022.
2022-04-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 20, 2022 to May 10, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-03-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 20, 2022.
2022-03-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 21, 2022 to April 20, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-02-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 21, 2022.
2022-02-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 17, 2022 to March 21, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-18
Response Requested. (Due February 17, 2022)
2022-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-12-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2022)
2021-10-12
Application (21A64) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 18, 2021.
2021-10-07
Application (21A64) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 19, 2021 to December 18, 2021, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Kalab D. Willman, et al.
Stephen I. Vladeck — Petitioner
Stephen I. Vladeck — Petitioner
Thomas R. Govan, Jr.United States Air Force Appellate Defense Division, Petitioner
Thomas R. Govan, Jr.United States Air Force Appellate Defense Division, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent