United States v. McGriff

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
• Decided: June 12, 2019
• Docket: 19-0206/AF
• Status: Published

Opinion

This opinion is subject to revision before publication

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________

UNITED STATES Appellee v. James A. McGRIFF II, Staff Sergeant United States Air Force, Appellant No. 19-0206 Crim. App. No. ACM 39306 Decided June 12, 2019 Military Judge: James E. Key III For Appellant: Major Mark J. Schwartz. For Appellee: Colonel Julie L. Pitvorec, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Kubler, Captain Anne M. Delmare, and Mary Ellen Payne, Esq. _________________

PER CURIAM:

On consideration of Appellant’s petition for grant of re- view of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, we deny the petition.1 However, we note that denial of a petition, although it allows the decision be- low to stand, does not suggest that we either agree or disa- gree with the merits of a lower court’s resolution of the case. Cf. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989) (recognizing that denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court carries no precedential value as it is not an expression of the Supreme Court’s opinion upon the merits of the case). Thus, denial of this petition carries no support whatsoever for concluding

1 The sole issue raised was: Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals improperly conducted a review of the prejudice resulting from Appellant being subjected to cruel and unusual pun- ishment during his post-trial confinement. United States v. McGriff, No. 19-0206/AF Opinion of the Court

that the lower court either correctly or incorrectly interpret- ed the scope and application of Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832−34 (1994), United States v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211, 215 (C.A.A.F. 2006), or United States v. Brennan, 58 M.J. 351, 355 (CA.A.F. 2003). Cf. Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912, 919 (1950) (emphasizing that denial of certio- rari reflects no judgment on the opinion below); United States v. Mahan, 1 M.J. 303, 307 n.9 (C.M.A. 1976) (reiterat- ing that the denial of a petition is of no precedential value).