875 EK. Ashby Place Suite 1200

San Antonio, TX 78212

For almost all non-capital offenses from the timeframe of Petitioner’s convictions, criminal defendants in courts-martial are sentenced in accordance with statutorily or _presidentially prescribed ranges within the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), not with a set of sentencing guidelines… When a military judge incorrectly calculates the applicable confinement range, the sentence adjudicator, a panel of military members or the military judge, must adjudge a sentence within the resulting erroneous range. In the present case, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) affirmed the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) and decided that an incorrect calculation of the applicable confinement range does not inherently undermine the fairness of the sentencing process. Therefore, the CAAF determined that the incorrect calculation does not implicate due process rights, and the issue can be waived at trial.

The question presented 1s:

Whether a criminal defendant can waive a judge’s incorrect maximum punishment calculation. 1 Military sentencing parameters which the President prescribed on July 28, 2023, apply only in cases in which all findings of guilty are for offenses committed on or after December 28, 2023, and are not relevant to this petition. See Exec. Order No. 14103, 88 Fed. Reg. 50535, § 38 (July 28, 2023); Department of the Air Force Instruction (DAFI) 51-201, Administration of Military Justice (Jan. 24, 2024), 4 19.16. A few Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) offenses, although none of which Petitioner was convicted, have statutory mandatory minimum sentences.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), a sentencing court may only impose a discretionary condition of supervised release insofar as the condition “is reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 35538(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D).” The factor set forth in section 3553(a)(1) is “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.”

The question presented 1s:

Whether the “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), as well as the “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), as cross-referenced in section 3583(d)(1), means “and,” or whether the “and” means “or,” as the Tenth Circuit held below?

1

In our constitutional system of separated powers, Article II vests the Executive Branch with the plenary authority to initiate and terminate criminal prosecutions. Consistent with that power, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) authorizes federal prosecutors to dismiss criminal charges with leave of the district court.

Rule 48(a) contains no language expressly limiting its application to convictions that have not yet become final. Accordingly, this Court has permitted post-conviction application of the rule while direct appeal was pending. In this case the court below read a temporal restriction into Rule 48(a), prohibiting its use by prosecutors to dismiss charges once a conviction becomes final. Such a prohibition will preclude the government from dismissing a conviction after direct appeal, even when prosecutors determine that the remedy is just and appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case. Thus, the question presented 1s:

Whether Article II of the U.S. Constitution and this Court’s precedents interpreting Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) authorize federal prosecutors to dismiss criminal charges after a conviction has become final.

|

The Nebraska Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing of the decision of the | Nebraska Supreme Court which affirmed convictions and sentences of consecutive terms of life for first-degree murder, 50 to 60 years’ imprisonment, with a ten year mandatory minimum, for use of a weapon to commit a felony and 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment, with a three year 3 mandatory minimum, for tampering with evidence. The question presented is: l. Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court has decided an important question of :

federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the United States Supreme |

Court or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with |

relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court in respect to disclosure of

evidence at trial after the witnesses at issue had already testified in violation of

Ramos’ rights to a fair trial and due process under the 5”. 6”, and 14”

Amendments to the United States Constitution.