A noteworthy grant (updated)

No. 26-0002/AR. U.S. v. Zackery J. Askins. CCA 20230303. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following issues:
 
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS IN A "TIME OF WAR" FROM 2014-2017 AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED. 
 
WHETHER APPELLANT WAIVED OR FORFEITED APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO HIS LARCENY CONVICTION IN SPECIFICATION 1 OF CHARGE I.  IF FORFEITED, DOES APPELLANT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER PLAIN ERROR REVIEW?

[Update] 

Thursday, February 5, 2026 [SEE BELOW OCT 20, 2025 FOR CERTIFICATE ISSUE]
Interlocutory Order
 
No. 26-0014/AR. U.S. v. Zackery J. Askins. CCA 20230303. On consideration of Appellant/Cross-Appellee's certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that Appellant/Cross-Appellee shall, within 21 days of the date of this order, file a brief addressing the following issue specified by the Court:
 
WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. MALONE, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2026), APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVED MULTIPLICITY WITH REGARD TO HIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS.

ACCA's opinion and the briefs are here:
www.jagcnet.army.mil/ACCALibrary/cases/42695102-2fc5-4394-b1bc-852dce1cf411

The Supp./Brief to CAAF is here:
www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2025Term/Askins260002Supplement.pdf

[Another update]

See Askins v. Commander, JRCF.

Petitioner, a military prisoner acting pro se, has filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by which he claims that he has been improperly denied First Step Act (FSA) credits against his sentence for programs completed at a previous place of confinement. Respondent has filed a brief opposing this claim, and petitioner has filed a reply brief, and the claim is therefore ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies this claim of the petition, and thus the petition is denied in its entirety.

For a period after his convictions by court martial, petitioner was transferred to a federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility. Petitioner claims that he completed programming at that facility for which he should receive FSA credits, and he challenges the BOP's policy of refusing to award such credits to military prisoners in BOP custody. Petitioner argues that the BOP must award such credits pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 858(a), which allows for the confinement of a prisoner convicted by court martial in any federal institution and which states: "Persons so confined in a penal or correctional institution not under the control of one of the armed forces are subject to the same discipline and treatment as persons confined or committed by the courts of the United States . . . ." See id. Petitioner has not cited any case in which a court has held that military prisoners are entitled to receive FSA credits while in BOP custody. Instead, petitioner relies on cases in which military prisoners in BOP custody were deemed subject to the same rules regarding parole that apply to federal prisoners. In one such case, the Tenth Circuit stated that "[i]t has been consistently held that a military prisoner who is committed to the service of his sentence in a federal penitentiary automatically becomes entitled to any advantages and subject to any disadvantages which accrue to the civilian prisoner." See Stewart v. United States Bd. of Parole, 285 F.2d 421, 421-22 (10th Cir. 1960) (per curiam) (citations and internal quotation omitted).
The Court agrees with the reasoning of the court in Ruiz v. United States, 2025 WL 973935 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2025), which did address this exact issue, and which held that the BOP is not required to award FSA credits to military prisoners.