10 U.S.C. § 871
Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVIII, § 5302(b)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2923]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 176
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012).
United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012). “§ 860 (c)(2) (2006); (2) The President, in a death penalty case, but not for the part of the sentence providing for death; Article 71(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 871 (a) (2006); (3) The Secretary of the service, or Under or Assistant Secretary so designated to act on his behalf, in…”
Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). “Article 71(c)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 871 (c)(1) (2000). In addition, various forms of executive action are required before the results of a court-martial become final.”
Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “Decision Accordingly, this Court dismisses both petitions for a writ coram nobis without prejudice for Petitioner to refile a writ of habeas corpus with this Court. CRAWFORD, Judge (concurring in the result): I agree that the writ of eoram nobis should be dismissed.”
United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “00-5004/MC would become effective when direct review becomes final in the manner described in Article 71(c), UCMJ, 10 USC § 871 (c).” Id. Regarding Certified Issue II, I agree that Article 66(c) requires Courts of Criminal Appeals to decide which findings and sentence should be…”
Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018). “See 10 U. S. C. §871 (c)(1) (stating that even when a sen- tence is subject to an executive official’s approval, the “judgment” is “final” when judicial review is concluded).”
United States v. Rorie, 58 M.J. 399 (C.A.A.F. 2003). “There, a majority of this Court abated Berry’s conviction ab initio because the conviction was not final within the meaning of Article 71(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 871 (c) (2000). Berry died seven days prior to the expiration of his time within which to petition this Court.”
Gurson Gourzong v. Attorney Gen. United States, 826 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2016). “The bad-conduct-discharge sentence was ultimately executed, however, on August 22, 1996, after the appellate review procedures set forth in Article 71(c) of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 871 (c), had been satisfied. A.”
United States v. Occhi, 2 M.J. 60 (1976). “5 Articles 71 and 74, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 874, presently delineate various officials who may suspend a sentence.”
Loving v. United States, 64 M.J. 132 (C.A.A.F. 2006). “14 10 U.S.C. § 871 (a) (2000). 15 Loving v. United States, 62 M.”
Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009). “§ 1259 (2006); and (5) consideration by the President under Article 71(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 871 (a) (2006). A case does not become final under the UCMJ until completion of all five stages.”
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974). “71 (a) of the UCMJ, *258 10 U. S. C. § 871 (a). The President acted on March 25, 1960: "[P]ursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, the sentence to be put to death is hereby commuted to…”
Loving v. Dep't of Def., 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “10 U.S.C. § 871 (a) (“If the sentence of the court-martial extends to death, that part of *36 the sentence providing for death may not be executed until approved by the President.”
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.