Simpson v. Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 25, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
CHARLES W. SIMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 05-3394
v. (D. Ct. No. 03-CV-3209-RDR)
(D. Kan.)
COMMANDANT, United States
Disciplinary Barracks,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This petition is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Petitioner-Appellant
Charles W. Simpson, who is incarcerated at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Ft.
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders ;
nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th
Cir. R. 36.3.
Leavenworth, Kansas and proceeds pro se. We therefore construe liberally all of the
issues raised in Mr. Simpson’s petition. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Mr. Simpson was convicted of an indecent assault, attempted rape, obstruction of
justice, and forcible sodomy by a general court martial in late 1996 and early 1997. He
was sentenced to a reduction in his classification, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,
confinement for twenty years, and a dishonorable discharge. Mr. Simpson appealed his
sentence in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces. Mr. Simpson now seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on several grounds related
to pretrial motions, a lesser included offense instruction, alleged bias on the part of the
military judge, and failures of defense counsel.
Federal courts have very limited authority to review decisions made by the courts-
martial. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 139, 142 (1953); Roberts v. Callahan, 321 F.3d
994 (10th Cir. 2003). Specifically, when a military tribunal has dealt “fully and fairly”
with an issue raised in a habeas petition, “it is not open to a federal civil court to grant the
writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence.” Burns, 346 U.S. at 142. We consider an
allegation to have received full consideration when an issue is briefed and argued before a
military board of review, even if the claim is summarily disposed of. Watson v.
McCotter, 782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir. 1986). We have fully reviewed the record in this
case and agree with the District Court that the claims that Mr. Simpson raises in this
habeas proceeding were presented to and considered by the military courts. We have no
-2-
basis to conduct additional review of Mr. Simpson’s claims for relief in this proceeding.
Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus is dismissed. All relief is denied.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Chief Circuit Judge
-3-