The case is returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2012). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2012) shall apply.

United States v. Hennis.Appellant’s case is before this Court for mandatory review under Article 67(a)(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(1) (2012). Appellant has filed a consolidated motion requesting, in relevant part, appointment of appellate defense team members pursuant to the Army’s capital litigation regulation, as well as funding for learned counsel, a mitigation specialist, and a fact investigator.

Once the necessary information is obtained, the court will complete its Article 66(c),Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2012), review. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2012), shall apply.

Once the necessary information is obtained, the court will complete its Article 66(c),Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2012), review. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2012), shall apply.

Once the necessary information is obtained, the court will complete its Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(c) (2012), review. Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2012), shall apply.The ACCA opinion does not appear to be on their website.

At the conclusion of the DuBay hearing, the record will be transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further review under Article 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866 (2006). Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2006), shall apply.Here’s the prior history from AFCCA’s decision on remand. In a published decision, issued 3 June 2010, [AFCCA} affirmed the approved findings and sentence.

On consideration of Appellant’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s order dismissing Appellant’s petition for grant of review as untimely filed, __ M.J. __ (Daily Journal, June 25, 2009), it is ordered that said petition for reconsideration be, and the same is hereby denied.EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result):I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2). SeeUnited States v. Angell, No. 09-0098/AR, ___ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009) (Effron, C.J., concurring in the result)BAKER, Judge (concurring):I concur in the result.

CCA 20050411. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals and in light of EFFRON, Chief Judge (concurring in the result): I concur in the result and note that Appellant’s case remains subject to review in our Court under Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2). See BAKER, Judge (dissenting): I dissent for the reasons stated in

DID THE COURT ERR SINCE THE MEMBERS MUST HAVE BASED THEIR ADULTERY CONVICTION ON THE FORCE AND CONSENT FINDINGS OF RAPE THAT WERE SET ASIDE?The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for remand to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of the granted issue and completion of its Article 66(c), UCMJ, review.Thereafter, Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867 (2000), shall apply.