United States v. Castleman
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
We have consolidated for en banc consideration two motions for leave to file documents relating to the accused’s conduct which are not a part of the record. In United States v. Dunkin, the defense has moved that we consider the documents on the issue of sentence appropriateness; the government opposes granting the motion. In United States v. Castieman, the motion is identical, but the parties are reversed in their roles.
On the issue of sentence appropriateness, Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), we adhere to precedent and hold that this Court is limited…
3Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. DukesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1978
- United States v. FagnanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1961
- United States v. GordonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1953
- United States v. RowserU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1975
- United States v. GordonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
4Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. HealyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
- United States v. BooneCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
- United States v. HoardU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1981
- United States v. EubankU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1981
- United States v. JohnsonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.