United States v. Willenbring , 178 F. App'x 223 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7097
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES G. WILLENBRING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-04-26-5-H)
Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: April 27, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Charles G. Willenbring, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles G. Willenbring appeals from the dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition challenging his military
convictions. The district court determined that the military
courts had fully and fairly considered all of Willenbring’s claims,
and thus, federal review of the merits was improper. After a
careful review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of
Willenbring’s non-jurisdictional claims for the reasons stated by
the district court. See United States v. Willenbring, No. CA-04-
26-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 28, 2005). However, we vacate the dismissal
of Willenbring’s claims attacking the jurisdiction of the
court-martial court and remand for consideration of the merits of
the claims.
Federal civil courts have only limited authority to
review court-martial proceedings. See Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S.
137, 139-42 (1953). In general, if the military courts have fully
and fairly reviewed the petitioner’s claims, the federal court
cannot review them. See Roberts v. Callahan, 321 F.3d 994, 995
(10th Cir. 2003). However, we may consider habeas claims
challenging the court-martial’s jurisdiction. See McClaughry v.
Deming, 186 U.S. 49, 68-69 (1902); Monk v. Zelez, 901 F.2d 885, 888
(10th Cir. 1990). A court-martial court is a court of special and
limited jurisdiction. Runkle v. United States, 122 U.S. 543, 555
(1887). It is a creature of statute, and it must be convened and
- 2 -
constituted in entire conformity with the provisions of the
statute, or else it is without jurisdiction. Deming, 186 U.S. at
62.
Willenbring raises two claims challenging the
jurisdiction of the military courts. First, he asserts that the
court-martial court lacked jurisdiction over him because he had
been honorably discharged from his enlistment prior to the
institution of court-martial proceedings. Second, he claims that
the court-martial court could not exercise continuing jurisdiction
over certain charges under Article 3(a) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. While we express no opinion on the merits of
these claims, we hold that the district court erred in refusing to
consider them.
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district
court’s order dismissing Willenbring’s jurisdictional challenges,
remand those claims for further consideration, and affirm the
remainder of the district court’s order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
- 3 -