United States Fourth Circuit

The dismissal of Petitioner's habeas petition with respect to the judgment of a military court is affirmed, where Petitioner: 1) did not completely terminate his military service following the charged conduct; and 2) the phrase "on active duty" in Article 2(d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice refers to both regular and reserve duty in the Army.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/09/2009
• Published 03/09/2009

Judges

• Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  John Cowles Neiman, Jr., Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, L.L.P., Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant.  Patrick Brian Grant, U.S. Army, United States Army Litigation Center, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.