Summary Disposition and a Certified Case

"​Petition for Grant of Review - Summary Disposition
 
No. 21-0138/NA. U.S. v. Calvin Halfacre. CCA 201900210. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted, and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.*
 
* It is directed that the promulgating order be corrected to accurately reflect that Appellant pleaded guilty to each specification under Charge II excepting the language "was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces and" in each specification and guilty to Charge II.
 
Certificate for Review Filed
 
No. 21-0222/NA. U.S. v. Chase T. Miller. CCA 201900234. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 on this date on the following issues:
 
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THE CONVENING AUTHORITY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION UNDER R.C.M. 1109 BY ACTING AFTER APPELLEE SUBMITTED R.C.M. 1106 CLEMENCY MATTERS BUT BEFORE THE MILITARY JUDGE ISSUED HIS WRITTEN POST-TRIAL RULING?
 
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S REVIEW WAS UNINFORMED UNDER R.C.M. 1109 WHERE THE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED AFTER APPELLEE SUBMITTED R.C.M. 1106 CLEMENCY MATTERS AND REVIEW OF THE MILITARY JUDGE'S POST-TRIAL RULING WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER R.C.M. 1109?
 
DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE POST-ACTION WRITTEN RULING WAS A SUBSTANTIAL OMISSION WHERE THE RULING WAS NOT AN R.C.M. 1106 MATTER AND NOTHING IN THE NEW RULES REQUIRED THE CONVENING AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE RULING PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION UNDER R.C.M. 1109 EVEN IF INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF TRIAL?
 
Appellant will file a brief under Rule 22(b) in support of said certificate on or before the 12th day of May, 2021."

Editor's note: Halfacre was granted review for a ​clerical correction, and therefore the petitioner is now eligible to petition for cert at SCOTUS. The same is not true of all the other cases that, for whatever reason, failed to gain enough votes to be granted review. Does this make sense?