U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IX— POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL

10 U.S.C. § 876

Art. 76. Finality of proceedings, findings, and sentences

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, the proceedings, findings, and sentences of courts-martial as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, and all dismissals and discharges carried into execution under sentences by courts-martial following approval, review, or affirmation as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of courts-martial and all action taken pursuant to those proceedings are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, subject only to action upon a petition for a new trial as provided in section 873 of this title (article 73) and to action by the Secretary concerned as provided in section 874 of this title (article 74) and the authority of the President.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 178 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009). · cites it 5× “C The Government counters that Article 76 of the UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 876 , “affirmatively prohibit^] the type of collateral review sought by respondent.”
Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 4× “Once such action is taken, Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876 (2000), provides, in pertinent part, that “[o]rders publishing the proceedings of courts-martial and all action taken pursuant to those proceedings are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of…”
Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975). · cites it 4× “76 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 876 . That article, set forth in the margin, [10] *745 provides in pertinent part that "the proceedings, findings, and sentences of courts-martial as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter .”
Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009). · cites it 4× “See Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876 (2006). In the present case, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.”
Loving v. United States, 62 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2005). · cites it 2× “UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876 (2000). 3 . See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.”
Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976). · cites it 2× “10 U. S. C. § 876 . It is indeed ironic that the federal parties—statutorily barred from appealing Alderman —have now secured its rejection through this lawsuit, originally brought in federal court by servicemen seeking the very protections later accorded them by Alderman.”
Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (1973). · cites it 4× “76 of the Code, 10 U. S. C. § 876 , subject, of course, to the habeas corpus exception recognized in United States v.”
Loving v. United States, 64 M.J. 132 (C.A.A.F. 2006). · cites it 4× “Hardy,33 the Supreme Court in Teague defined a “final” conviction in a state court as one “‘where the judgment of conviction was rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petition for certiorari had elapsed.”
United States v. Wise, 64 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F. 2007). · cites it 2× “2005) (relying on legislative history to glean the congressional intent behind Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876 (2000)). The legislative history surrounding Article 12, UCMJ, identifies the concerns it sought to address.”
United States v. Arness, 74 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2015). · cites it 2× “The Judge Advocate General denied reconsideration on the basis that Appellant’s conviction and sentence were final under Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876 (2012). Appellant filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis at the CCA.”
United States v. Chapman, 75 M.J. 598 (A.F.C.C.A. 2016). “§ 871 (c)(1), and the case is final under Article 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 876 . Prior Writ Petitions to This Court In 2012, Petitioner filed a writ petition for extraordinary relief seeking the appointment of appellate counsel to represent him in filing a writ of habeas corpus.”
Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018). “See 10 U. S. C. §876 . But the CAAF does not review court-martial proceedings until after they have been approved and have been reviewed by an interme- diate Court of Criminal Appeals.”
Show all 178 citing cases →
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.