Robert D. Schneider v. United States

In military courts-martial, under 10 U.S.C. § 860c, the Entry of Judgment (EoJ) is the final judgment, marking the end of trial and the beginning of the posttrial process. In the Air Force, a senior attorney who advises commanders prepares a memorandum, called a First Indorsement, to indicate receipt of the EoJ and summarize criminal indexing requirements. This includes indexing for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The First Indorsement makes a legal determination about whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 applies to the convicted servicemember and effectuates a restriction of their Second Amendment rights. If that legal determination is made in error, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) has statutory authority under Article 66(d)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2), to provide relief. Despite a clear statute providing authority to the AFCCA, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) decided that military courts have no such authority. The question presented is: Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 860c and 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.