Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 5/10/2010

United States v. Roach

Citations

69 M.J. 17
2010 CAAF LEXIS 413
2010 WL 1878102

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that the court “review[s] the sentence appropriateness decisions of the Courts of Criminal Appeals for abuse of discretion” and may “order a de novo review when the lower court has erred as a matter of law”
“In contrast, when the CCA (Courts of Criminal Appeals) is exercising its power over sentence appropriateness generally, it may consider both adjudged and approved sentences.”
“A recusal means a judge may not preside over any subsequent proceedings in the case or perform any other judicial actions with respect to it.”
“Whether, and how, a showing of ‘malicious delay’ on the part of an appellate judge might inform the Barker factors is a question for another day.”
“A recusal means the judge ‘may not preside over any subsequent proceedings in the case or perform any other judicial actions with respect to it.’ ” (quoting Richard E. Flamm, Judicial Disqualification: Recusal and Disqualification of Judges § 22.1 (1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baker, Effron, Erd-Mann, Stucky, Ryan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Roach

25 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.