Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Zhuo H. Zhong v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, No. 25-0011 · judgment July 25, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
-
In 2021, Congress added a new subsection to Article 67(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(c). The new language incorporated factual sufficiency review into the portion of the statute pertaining to the review authority of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). In United States v. Csiti, 85 M.J. 414 (C.A.A.F. 2025), the CAAF concluded that the new language did not allow it to conduct factual sufficiency review. The first question presented is: Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to hold that a conviction is factually insufficient under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c)(1)(C).
-
In courts-martial, the entry of judgment (EOJ) under 10 U.S.C. § 860c is the final judgment, marking the beginning of the post-trial process. In the Air Force, a First Indorsement memorandum summarizes criminal indexing requirements. It reflects a legal determination about whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 applies to the convicted servicemember and effectuates a restriction of their Second Amendment rights. Despite statutory authority under Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2), to correct post-judgment processing errors, the CAAF decided that military courts cannot correct indicated firearms prohibitions. The second 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.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Frederick James Johnson
Air Force Appellate Defense Division
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Proceedings
- Jun 08 2026Petition DENIED.
- Jun 02 2026Letter of June 2, 2026 from the Solicitor General filed. (Distributed)
- May 19 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2026.
- May 15 2026Reply of petitioner Zhuo Zhong filed. (Distributed)
- May 04 2026Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Apr 21 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 4, 2026.
- Apr 20 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 27, 2026 to May 4, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 23 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 27, 2026.
- Mar 19 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 27, 2026 to April 27, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 23 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 27, 2026.
- Feb 20 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 25, 2026 to March 27, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 26 2026Response Requested. (Due February 25, 2026)
- Jan 14 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
- Jan 12 2026Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Dec 19 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2026)
- Oct 15 2025Application (25A425) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 22, 2025.
- Oct 08 2025Application (25A425) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 23, 2025 to December 22, 2025, submitted to The Chief Justice.