No. 24-7069
Thomas M. Adams v. United States
Amici (1)Response WaivedIFP
Tags: court-of-appeals judicial-review military-justice petition-review statutory-interpretation uniform-code-military-justice
Latest Conference:
2025-05-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the mandate under Article 67(a)(3) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice permit the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to deny review where a petitioner has presented a meritorious issue?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Article 67(a)(3), Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. ยง 867(a)(3), provides that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [CAAF] โ shall review the record in . . . all cases . . . in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, [the CAAF] has granted a review.โ Does the mandate under 67(a)(3) permit the CAAF to deny review where petitioner has presented a meritorious issue?
Docket Entries
2025-06-02
Petition DENIED.
2025-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/29/2025.
2025-05-07
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-05-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-04-28
Amicus brief of National Institute of Military Justice submitted.
2025-04-28
Brief amicus curiae of National Institute of Military Justice filed.
2025-04-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 27, 2025)
2025-02-14
Application (24A780) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until April 21, 2025.
2025-02-07
Application (24A780) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 20, 2025 to April 21, 2025, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
National Institute of Military Justice
Eugene Roy Fidell — Feldesman Leifer LLP, Amicus
Thomas Adams
Robert Warren Rodriguez — U.S. Army Defense Appellate Division, Petitioner
United States
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent