United States v. Moses
70 M.J. 347, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 739
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Moses. Read the opinion of the Court — 71 M.J. 351 →
Opinion
CCA 20090247. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.A.F. 2011).
No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Moses, 70 M.J. 347, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 739 (Ark. 2011).
70 M.J. 347 (United States v. Moses) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Fosler
70 M.J. 225 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2011)