CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic

U.S. v. Gilley, 59 M.J. 245

Decided Feb 18, 2004 · No. 00-0559/AF · 2004 Term · Opinion (PDF)

Digested under 2 topics

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

  1. we hold that Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals Rule (AFCCA Rule) 2.2, which requires counsel to submit briefs for a remanded case within seven days, which is less than the 60 days prescribed by Courts of Criminal Appeals Rule of Practice and Procedure (CCA Rule) 15, is invalid
  2. Article 66(f), UCMJ, does not permit an individual Court of Criminal Appeals to create its own exclusive filing deadline which varies from the general filing deadline put forth in the uniform CCA rules
  3. we interpret Article 66(f), UCMJ, to require identical rules among all Courts of Criminal Appeals regarding any course of action an appellant may take in a case before such court – which includes filing a brief; Article 66(f) therefore requires the Courts of Criminal Appeals to enforce identical deadlines for filing briefs; in this vein, CCA Rule 15 provides one deadline for the filing of any brief before all Courts of Criminal Appeals; because the seven-day deadline for filing briefs in cases on remand under AFCCA Rule 2.2 varies from the 60-day timeline in the uniform rule, it is invalid
  4. CCA Rule 26 authorizes the Courts of Criminal Appeals to create internal court rules; that is, the rule authorizes the Courts of Criminal Appeals to create rules applying to entities existing or situated within each court’s limits; by contrast, a rule governing filings or briefs, such as AFCCA Rule 2.2, applies to entities external to the court, i.e., the parties; moreover, an internal rule created under CCA Rule 26 logically cannot conflict with a uniform rule of procedure already adopted by the Judge Advocates General; indeed, a subject deemed appropriate by the Judge Advocates General for a uniform rule cannot also be an appropriate subject for a different, internal rule; because AFCCA Rule 2.2 applies to external, not internal, entities, and because it logically conflicts with the uniform guidance of CCA Rule 15, it is outside the scope of CCA Rule 26

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

  1. in construing the language of a statute or rule, it is generally understood that the words should be given their common and approved usage
  2. under the UCMJ, personnel of the armed forces, regardless of the Department in which they serve, will be subject to the same law and will be tried in accordance with the same procedures
Source and status

This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.

Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).