10 U.S.C. § 857a
Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVIII, § 5302(b)(1), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2923]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2021 · leading case: United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “It was well aware of the temporary nature of deferment (see Article 57a(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 857a(a)) and chose to provide a United States v.”
United States v. Zimmer, 56 M.J. 869 (A.C.C.A. 2002). “A different provision, Article 57a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(a), authorizes a convening authority to similarly defer execution of any sentence to confinement, which otherwise begins to run from the date the sentence is adjudged.”
United States v. Mooney, 76 M.J. 545 (A.F.C.C.A. 2017). “Similar to the arguments raised by trial defense counsel during clemency, Appellant claims on appeal that Article 57a(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(b), which addresses a convening authority’s ability to defer a sentence to confinement, is dispositive.”
United States v. Sebastian, 55 M.J. 661 (A.C.C.A. 2001). “57a(a), 10 U.S.C. § 857a(a) (emphasis added). 3 The legislative history stated that the “discretion exercised would be very broad and would be vested exclusively in the convening authority” who would consider “all relevant factors in each case and would grant or deny deferment…”
United States v. Willenbring, 56 M.J. 671 (A.C.C.A. 2001). “In his action dated 5 March 1999, the convening authority directed that, “[i]n accordance with Article 57a(b)(l), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(b)(l), and Rule for Court[s]-Martial 1107(d)(3), the sentence to confinement is deferred effective 2 November 1998, until such time as…”
United States v. Stachowski, 58 M.J. 816 (A.C.C.A. 2003). “The defense could have requested a period of deferment of the sentence to confinement under Article 57a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a. See R.C.M. 502(d)(6) discussion (E) and 1101(c).”
United States v. Toy, 60 M.J. 598 (N.M.C.C.A. 2004). “57a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a. A military court reviews a convening authority’s decision to deny a request for deferment for abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Riggs, 59 M.J. 614 (2003). “Article 57a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a. He must make a knowing request for deferment in order for it to be effective.”
Taylor v. Garaffa, 57 M.J. 645 (N.M.C.C.A. 2002). “In Gorski the Court concluded that the increased forfeiture provisions of Articles 57a and 58b, UCMJ, 10 USC §§ 857a and 858b, constituted an Ex Post Facto law in violation of the U.”
United States v. Katso, 76 M.J. 704 (A.F.C.C.A. 2017). “2 In response, Congress enacted Article 57a(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(c), which provides that when a sentence to confinement has been ordered executed by the con- vening authority but the case is pending review under Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.”
United States v. Perea (A.F.C.C.A. 2017). “See Articles 57a and 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 857a, 858b. This case was submitted to us on its merits with no assignments of error.”
United States v. Cortes (A.F.C.C.A. 2020). “; Article 57a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C § 857a. Mandatory forfeitures under Article 58b, UCMJ, may be both deferred pursuant to Article 57a, UCMJ, and waived in accordance with Article 58b, UCMJ.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 857a(2) — 1 case
United States v. Cortes (A.F.C.C.A. 2020). “; Article 57a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C § 857a. Mandatory forfeitures under Article 58b, UCMJ, may be both deferred pursuant to Article 57a, UCMJ, and waived in accordance with Article 58b, UCMJ.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 857a(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “It was well aware of the temporary nature of deferment (see Article 57a(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 857a(a)) and chose to provide a United States v.”
United States v. Zimmer, 56 M.J. 869 (A.C.C.A. 2002). “A different provision, Article 57a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(a), authorizes a convening authority to similarly defer execution of any sentence to confinement, which otherwise begins to run from the date the sentence is adjudged.”
United States v. Sebastian, 55 M.J. 661 (A.C.C.A. 2001). “57a(a), 10 U.S.C. § 857a(a) (emphasis added). 3 The legislative history stated that the “discretion exercised would be very broad and would be vested exclusively in the convening authority” who would consider “all relevant factors in each case and would grant or deny deferment…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 857a(b) — 1 case
United States v. Mooney, 76 M.J. 545 (A.F.C.C.A. 2017). “Similar to the arguments raised by trial defense counsel during clemency, Appellant claims on appeal that Article 57a(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(b), which addresses a convening authority’s ability to defer a sentence to confinement, is dispositive.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 857a(b)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Willenbring, 56 M.J. 671 (A.C.C.A. 2001). “In his action dated 5 March 1999, the convening authority directed that, “[i]n accordance with Article 57a(b)(l), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(b)(l), and Rule for Court[s]-Martial 1107(d)(3), the sentence to confinement is deferred effective 2 November 1998, until such time as…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 857a(c) — 3 cases
United States v. Katso, 76 M.J. 704 (A.F.C.C.A. 2017). “2 In response, Congress enacted Article 57a(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 857a(c), which provides that when a sentence to confinement has been ordered executed by the con- vening authority but the case is pending review under Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.”
United States v. Katso (C.A.A.F. 2018).
United States v. Rodriguez (A.F.C.C.A. 2019).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.