Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United States v. Martinelli
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Decided September 28, 2005No. 02-0623/ARPublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGierke, Chief Judge
I agree with the majority that Appellant’s plea to specification 1 was improvident under United States v. O’Connor,1 and I agree that his guilty pleas to the other specifications based on the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA)2 cannot be deemed provident to the lesser included offenses under clauses 1 and 2 of Article 1343 based the principles discussed in United States v. Mason.4 Because the majority remands each of the CPPA-based specifications due to the improvidency of Appellant’s pleas, I believe the question of whether the CPPA has extraterritorial application does not need…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional De Marineros De HondurasSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Foley Bros., Inc. v. FilardoSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.