United States v. MAEBANE

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before
HOLIFIELD, KIRKBY, and DALY
Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES
Appellee

v.

Edmond A. MAEBANE III
Hospital Corpsman Second Class Petty Officer
(E-5), U.S. Navy
Appellant

No. 202200228

_________________________

Decided: 3 May 2024

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge:
Stephen F. Keane

Sentence adjudged 16 June 2022 by a general court-martial convened
at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of officer
and enlisted members. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to
E-1, confinement for six years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
a dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant:
Lieutenant Zoe R. Danielczyk, JAGC, USN
Lieutenant Colonel Matthew E. Neely, USMC (argued)
Donald C. King
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

For Appellee:
Lieutenant Commander James P. Wu Zhu, JAGC, USN
Lieutenant Commander Paul S. LaPlante, JAGC, USN (argued)

Chief Judge HOLIFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Senior Judge KIRKBY and Judge DALY joined.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but
may be cited as persuasive authority under
NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________

HOLIFIELD, Chief Judge:
A panel of officer and enlisted members at a general court-martial con-
victed Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of reckless endan-
germent and one specification of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of Ar-
ticles 114 and 119, Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ]. 1
Appellant asserts seven assignments of error [AOEs]: (1) Appellant’s Sixth
Amendment right to present a complete defense was violated when the mili-
tary judge excluded evidence of a third party’s confession to the allegations
against Appellant; (2) the military judge erroneously failed to excuse a member
for implied bias when the member used the facts of this case as a “teaching
moment” and expressed an “innate” adverse reflex to others’ improper han-
dling of weapons; (3) the convening authority became an accuser by directing
an Article 32, UCMJ, preliminary hearing into Appellant’s alleged offenses
when preferred charges against Appellant did not exist; (4) the military judge
erroneously denied trial defense counsel’s continuance request that was neces-
sary to ensure a defense expert consultant was present at trial; (5) the evidence
is legally and factually insufficient to support a conviction for the additional
charge of reckless endangerment in violation of Article 114(a), UCMJ; (6) the

1 10 U.S.C. §§ 914 and 919.

2
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

evidence is factually insufficient to support a conviction for involuntary man-
slaughter in violation of Article 119, UCMJ; 2 and (7) Appellant was entitled to
a unanimous verdict. We find no prejudicial error and affirm. 3

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Shooting and its Immediate Aftermath
On the evening of 16 August 2019, Appellant hosted a gathering at his res-
idence on Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, Cali-
fornia. In attendance were Hospital Corpsman Third Class Petty Officer [HM3]
Whiskey, Hospital Corpsman Second Class Petty Officer [HM2] Hotel, HM2
Wilson, Hospital Corpsman First Class Petty Officer [HM1] Davis, Appellant,
and the victim, Hospital Corpsman Third Class Petty Officer [HM3] Delta. 4
After arriving at Appellant’s home between approximately 1830 and 1930,
the group cooked food, listened to music, smoked cigars, and consumed varying
quantities of alcohol. At some point in the evening, Appellant showed HM2
Wilson his new Springfield 9mm pistol. According to HM2 Wilson, Appellant
took the pistol from a nearby coffee table, “cleared [the pistol], so removed the
magazine, cleared [the] round that was in the chamber. And then, [Appellant]
handed [HM2 Wilson] the pistol.” 5 HM2 Wilson subsequently placed the mag-
azine and cleared round onto the nearby television stand and proceeded to get
“a feel for the sights and the trigger” of the weapon. 6 He then handed the pistol
back to Appellant who passed the Springfield 9mm around to the others at the
party.
Over the course of the evening, Appellant brought out two additional fire-
arms. Specifically, a Springfield 1911 .45 pistol and a lever action rifle. As the
weapons were passed around, there were instances where the Sailors “dry

2 This issue is raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.

1982).
3 We have reviewed AOEs 3, 5, 6, and 7, and find them to be without merit. United

States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 363 (C.M.A. 1987). In doing so, we examined the entire
record and are satisfied that the charges and specification of which Appellant was con-
victed were supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. Art. 66, UCMJ, 10
U.S.C. §866. See also United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394, 399 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
4 All names in this opinion, other than those of Appellant, military judge, and coun-

sel, are pseudonyms.
5 R. at 896

6 Id.

3
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

fired” the weapons. 7 Appellant was seen dry firing the Springfield 9mm while
pointing it at the victim. He was not alone in doing so, however, as HM3 Whis-
key also dry fired the Springfield 9mm while pointing the weapon at the victim.
Eventually, the weapons were put away. The lever action rifle was put be-
hind a recliner, the 1911 .45 was placed between a wall and couch, and the
Springfield 9mm was set down under a coffee table. At various times, the group
went outside to smoke cigars, cooked food in the kitchen, and ate in the living
room. They also began playing a drinking game. The board game, “shaped like
[M]onopoly,” required players to “drink a certain amount of drinks or do a spe-
cific task” after landing on a given square. 8
As the group conversed and played the game, HM2 Wilson noticed the 9mm
magazine and spare round were still on the television stand. After asking HM2
Davis to pass him the magazine and spare round, HM2 Wilson removed each
round from the magazine, counted the rounds, reloaded the magazine, and
then placed both the magazine and spare round onto a windowsill near him.
He did so to prevent someone from loading a round into the Springfield 9mm
by accident. Eventually, Appellant asked HM2 Wilson for the rounds and mag-
azine back, stating he intended to put the Springfield 9mm away upstairs. But
rather than bringing the rounds and magazine upstairs, Appellant “loaded the
magazine into the pistol, charged a round into [the] chamber [by racking the
slide], took the magazine out, put the spare round into the magazine” and then
placed “the magazine back [into] the pistol.” 9 Appellant then put the Spring-
field 9mm in his waistband.
Sometime thereafter, Appellant began wrestling with the victim. At this
point, Appellant gave HM2 Wilson both the handguns. Having seen Appellant
load the Springfield 9mm, HM2 Wilson placed the weapon under his thighs
while Appellant and the victim wrestled. When the wrestling ended, Appellant
asked for the Springfield 9mm back and again put the gun in his waistband.
Around midnight, Appellant and the victim began wrestling again. At some
point, Appellant pulled the Springfield 9mm from his waistband and placed it
against the victim’s head. The victim then “grabbed [the pistol] by the front of
the muzzle and, sort of, pulled it in, like, a couple inches to his forehead.” 10
Shortly before this, HM2 Hotel had witnessed Appellant pull the slide, causing

7 R. at 897, 1089. “Dry firing” means pulling the trigger of the weapon without a

round in the chamber.
8 R. at 899.

9 R. at 901.

10 R. at 902.

4
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

a round to enter the firing chamber. Seeing the pistol against the victim’s head
and believing Appellant, in pulling the slide with a loaded magazine in the
weapon, had just put another round in the chamber, HM2 Hotel “tried to jump
up and tell him to stop.” 11 He was too late. Appellant pulled the trigger, killing
the victim.
Appellant asked HM2 Wilson to call for help. As HM2 Wilson did not know
Appellant’s address, he passed the phone to Appellant, who spoke with the 911
dispatcher. The dispatcher notified the installation’s Criminal Investigative
Division [CID], who, in turn, notified the Naval Criminal Investigative Service
[NCIS]. Agents from both CID and NCIS reported to the scene. Upon their
arrival, Appellant told a CID agent that the victim had “reached down into the
sofa, pulled out a pistol and put it to his head and shot himself.” 12
Around 0145 on 17 August 2019, HM3 Whiskey, HM2 Hotel, HM2 Wilson,
HM1 Davis, and Appellant were placed in a military police van and driven to
the local NCIS headquarters. Each Sailor was subsequently interviewed con-
cerning the circumstances of the victim’s death. HM1 Davis provided the most
details concerning the shooting in his initial interview; he described seeing
smoke in the air around Appellant after hearing the shot. He did not, however,
describe seeing the shot being fired. Three others, HM3 Whiskey, HM2 Hotel,
and HM2 Wilson, also recalled hearing a gunshot, but similarly denied seeing
it fired. At the time, none of the witnesses said Appellant shot the victim. Ap-
pellant did not provide a statement.

B. The Investigation and HM3 Whiskey’s Confession
Later that day, after NCIS agents had erroneously concluded that the vic-
tim was shot in the back of his head, HM3 Whiskey was called to NCIS a second
time. (This mistaken conclusion regarding the wound’s back-to-front orienta-
tion led NCIS agents to wrongly believe the shot was fired from the victim’s
right—where HM3 Whiskey was sitting.) Shortly after being read his rights
under Article 31(b), UCMJ, NCIS Special Agent [SA] Tango confronted HM3
Whiskey, saying he was not providing the full circumstances surrounding the

11 R. at 1018.

12 R. at 1366.

5
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

victim’s death. 13 In response, HM3 Whiskey stated, “If I shot him, I don’t re-
member,” and went on to note he “never put the magazine inside the gun.” 14 In
response, SA Tango told HM3 Whiskey that she believed the victim’s death
may have been an accident, and that HM3 Whiskey had a bright future ahead
of him. 15 When SA Tango said that HM3 Whiskey seemed scared, he replied,
“I am scared . . . . If I knew I did it, I would say it.” 16 Special Agent Tango next
told HM3 Whiskey that she believed the bullet that killed the victim was fired
from where he was seated. 17 After being confronted with this allegation, HM3
Whiskey continued to assert he did not remember what happened.
A few minutes later, HM3 Whiskey told SA Tango, “[b]ut if like the evi-
dence . . . you can’t argue evidence if the evidence and stuff come back and say
I [shot the victim] it was an accident.” 18 A minute later, he told SA Tango, “I
don’t know what happened . . . I literally do not know what happened . . .
Maybe I just blocked it out . . . I don’t know what happened.” 19 He then re-
peated: “If I knew that it was me that did it, I would say that it was me that
did it.” 20
In response to further claims that he did not recall what happened, SA
Tango again told HM3 Whiskey that the shot that killed the victim was fired
from where he was seated. In response, HM3 Whiskey said, “If that’s all the
evidence [concerning the victim’s death], then I guess when I pulled the trigger
and it went off, I guess my mind just shut it off, shut it out. Because I never
intended for that to happen. It was just a stupid f**king accident.” 21 After this

13 Official Video Rec’g of HM3 Whiskey’s NCIS Inv’w, App. Ex. XVII at 2, 7:20,

8:05. This rights warning also included a cleansing warning, as agents had failed to
advise HM3 Whiskey of his Article 31(b) rights during his previous interviews. While
NCIS agents had previously suspected HM2 Whiskey of reckless endangerment, they
now suspected him of having killed the victim.
14 Official Video Rec’g of HM3 Whiskey’s NCIS Inv’w, App. Ex. XVII at 2, 9:58; App.

Ex. XXXIV at 48.
15 Official Video Rec’g of HM3 Whiskey’s NCIS Inv’w, App. Ex. XVII at 2, 11:57.

16 Id. at 12:37.

17 Id. at 13:15.

18 Id. at 18:25.

19 Id. at 19:35.

20 Id. at 22:10.

21 Id. at 25:45.

6
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

statement, SA Tango left the room. When she left, HM3 Whiskey immediately
whispered to himself, “It wasn’t me.” 22
When SA Tango returned after ten minutes, she continued her questioning.
HM3 Whiskey admitted to playing with the gun but told SA Tango he did not
know how it became loaded. Then, during the 39th minute of the interview, he
stated, “I guess, I guess, I did it. There’s really no arguing it. It was a stupid
f**king thing. It was a mistake. I didn’t mean to do it. I f**king killed some-
body.” 23
After HM3 Whiskey confessed, SA Tango asked him a number of follow-on
questions, including, “Did you pull the trigger?” 24 to which HM3 Whiskey re-
sponded, “I believe so.” 25 In response to further pressing, HM3 Whiskey told
SA Tango, “I guess after I took a drink—beer, I picked up the gun either from
the floor or couch next to me and then I shot him.” 26 He then stated, “I guess
that makes sense if I did have the gun in my hand.” 27
HM3 Whiskey went on to describe the shooting in further detail, stating,
“[w]hen I put down my beer, I picked up the gun, pointed it at him, expecting
it to dry fire again, boom, hands went up because it scared the f**k out of me
and that’s when I saw him slump. That’s when I was like holy s**t.” 28 At SA
Tango’s urging, HM3 Whiskey wrote a letter to the victim’s parents, stating,
“Your son was a good man and I took him from you and this world out of pure
stupidity.” 29 As a result of this interview, HM3 Whiskey was placed into pre-
trial confinement the following day.
While HM3 Whiskey was in pretrial confinement, HM1 Davis voluntarily
returned to NCIS and told investigators that he saw Appellant holding a gun
immediately after hearing the gunshot. HM1 Davis described to investigators
that he believed the weapon Appellant was holding was the 1911 .45 pistol. He
further said that, from his perspective, only Appellant could have fired the shot
that killed the victim. He did mention, however, that it was possible HM3

22 Id. at 27:54.

23 Id. at 38:54.

24 Id. at 39:27.

25 Id. at 39:28.

26 Id. at 44:20.

27 Id. at 44.45

28 Id. at 46:10.

29 App. Ex. XVII at 4.

7
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

Whiskey could have fired the shot if the evidence showed the entrance wound
was in the back of the victim’s head.
An autopsy revealed that the wound to the back of the victim’s head was
where the bullet exited. The entrance wound was on his forehead.
Approximately twelve days after his interview with SA Tango, HM3 Whis-
key recanted his confession. Among the reasons he offered for falsely confess-
ing were “he was scared,” he had received only “an hour of sleep,” he “wanted
the questions to stop,” and that SA Tango’s mention of the victim’s family
“made him feel terrible.” 30
Over the course of the investigation, HM2 Hotel and HM2 Wilson were
again interviewed by NCIS. In these interviews, both Sailors told NCIS that
Appellant was the one who fired the shot that killed the victim. Each recalled
Appellant holding a black pistol that looked to be the Springfield 9mm imme-
diately after the shot was fired. Forensic testing confirmed that the bullet that
killed the victim was fired from the Springfield 9mm pistol.
When questioned by NCIS about where various persons were located when
the shot was fired, HM2 Hotel’s, HM2 Wilson’s, and HM1 Davis’s answers were
in agreement. Each described Appellant as being on the victim’s immediate
right, while HM3 Whiskey was sitting to the victim’s left. Ultimately, the fo-
rensic report of the shooting indicated the bullet that killed the victim was
lodged in the wall immediately to the victim’s left. 31
Three months before trial, Appellant moved for a preliminary ruling to ad-
mit the recording of HM3 Whiskey’s interview with SA Tango and the hand-
written note to the victim’s parents. Appellant argued the confession should be
admissible under Military Rule of Evidence [Mil. R. Evid.] 807, the residual
exception to the rule against hearsay.
In his ruling on the motion, the military judge determined the evidence was
inadmissible under Mil. R. Evid. 807 for four specific reasons. First, the “foren-
sic evidence in [the] case directly contradict[ed]” the confession. 32 In fact, the
military judge noted that “the only evidence” Appellant addressed regarding

30 App. Ex. XVII at 23.

31 The Government’s expert testified that the trajectory testing (Pros. Ex. 15) could

tell only the trajectory of the bullet once it left the victim’s head, and not the trajectory
of the bullet before striking the victim. R. at 1763, 1766-67. But the evidence indicating
that the bullet was lodged in the wall directly to the victim’s left supports the military
judge’s finding that, “[f]orensic evidence determined that it is highly unlikely if not
impossible that [Whiskey] shot HM3 [Delta].” Appellate Ex. CLXXXVIII at 3.
32 App. Ex. CLXXXVIII at 5.

8
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

HM3 Whiskey’s culpability as the shooter was his confession in the interview. 33
Second, SA Tango utilized “suggestive questioning akin to coaching while ques-
tioning [HM3 Whiskey].” 34 Third, the circumstances of SA Tango’s interview of
HM2 Whiskey “are indicative of unreliability.” 35 HM3 Whiskey “was unstable
from grief, fear, and lack of sleep.” 36 Moreover, HM3 Whiskey “had endured
two interrogations in less than twenty-four hours about an event that ended in
the bloody death of a friend.” 37 The military judge found that HM3 Whiskey,
when advised of his rights and accompanied by counsel at his third interview,
recanted his confession. 38 The military judge ruled the handwritten note inad-
missible under M.R.E. 807 for the same reasons. He then went on to rule in
the alternative that admitting HM3 Whiskey’s statement “would serve to mis-
lead the members and waste time in violation of [Mil. R. Evid.] 403.” 39
But the confession was not without utility. The military judge ruled that
the Defense could impeach HM3 Whiskey with his statement to SA Tango; the
Defense simply could not offer the statement for its truth.
At trial, under direct examination by the Government, HM3 Whiskey tes-
tified that he had falsely confessed to the shooting: “I admitted to killing HM3
[Delta] which I did not do.” 40 He further testified that, while he was present
when the victim was killed, he did not see the shot occur. During cross-exami-
nation, trial defense counsel elicited from HM3 Whiskey, in detail, all relevant
facts regarding his confession to SA Tango.
Prior to closing arguments, the military judge provided the members, inter
alia, a general instruction regarding the proper consideration of prior incon-
sistent statements.

C. The Continuance Motion
On 5 June 2022, three days before the trial was scheduled to begin, Appel-
lant’s expert consultant and witness, Mr. Clark, tested positive for COVID-19.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id.

38 Id. at 6.

39 Id.

40 R. at 1184.

9
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

As a result, Appellant asked for a ten-day continuance. Appellant argued, cit-
ing healthcare guidelines in place at the time, that Mr. Clark would be able to
recover and travel to the trial at the conclusion of the ten-day continuance.
The continuance motion was addressed the following day at an Article
39(a), UCMJ, hearing. Appellant’s trial defense counsel argued that the “need
to present a complete defense” necessitated Mr. Clark being “alert, attentive,”
and physically able to observe the trial. 41 With the symptoms Mr. Clark was
experiencing, trial defense counsel believed he would be unable to do so, absent
a continuance.
The Government argued that the “logistical and administrative burden”
would shift the trial “indefinitely” if the continuance was granted, as more than
thirty individuals were already scheduled to attend the trial and seventeen
potential members were awaiting voir dire. 42 Furthermore, Mr. Clark had told
the Government he was capable of appearing virtually.
The military judge denied the continuance request, noting Mr. Clark was
“not a fact witness” and that it would be “perfectly fine for him to listen in
telephonically.” 43 Finding Mr. Clark’s ability to listen telephonically was “more
than sufficient,” the military judge stated, “[i]f we have to make any adjust-
ments down the line, I’ll consider those.” 44

D. The Challenge for Actual and Implied Bias
During voir dire, a prospective member, Gunnery Sergeant [GySgt] Cool,
indicated he had heard about the victim’s death, having had a conversation
with another Marine that may have been prompted by coverage of the incident
on social media. He indicated, however, that he could place his “previous expo-
sure” to the incident aside and “focus solely on what is presented in this court-
room.” 45 He further stated, “I haven’t seen evidence yet, so I have no opinions
as of yet.” 46
Trial defense counsel challenged GySgt Cool for actual and implied bias.
The military judge denied the challenge on both bases.

41 R. at 476.

42 R. at 472.

43 R. at 480.

44 Id.

45 R. at 716-17.

46 Id.

10
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

Additional facts necessary to resolve specific AOEs are discussed below.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense
was not violated.
Appellant argues his Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense
was violated when the military judge excluded the video recording of HM3
Whiskey’s second NCIS interview and the letter he wrote to the victim’s family.
We disagree.

1. Standard of Review and Law
We review a ruling to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. 47
“The abuse of discretion standard is a strict one, calling for more than a mere
difference of opinion. The challenged action must be arbitrary, fanciful, clearly
unreasonable, or clearly erroneous.” 48 “Findings of act are affirmed unless they
are clearly erroneous; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” 49 It is an abuse
of discretion if the military judge (1) “predicates his ruling on findings of fact
that are not supported by the evidence . . . ;” (2) “uses incorrect legal principles;”
(3) “applies correct legal principles to the facts in a way that is clearly unrea-
sonable,” or (4) “fails to consider important facts.” 50
The Supreme Court has held that, “[w]hether rooted directly in the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or
Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees
criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete de-
fense.” 51 “A defendant's right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited, but
rather is subject to reasonable restrictions.” 52 For example, the right is subject
to established evidentiary rules applicable to criminal trials “so long as they

47 United States v. Solomon, 72 M.J. 176, 179 (C.A.A.F. 2013); United States v.

Czachorowski, 66 M.J. 432, 434 (C.A.A.F. 2008).
48 United States v. White, 69 M.J. 236, 239 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (citation and internal

quotations omitted).
49 Czachorowski, 66 M.J. at 434 (citations omitted).

50 United States v. Commisso, 76 M.J. 315, 321 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (citations omitted).

51 Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006) (internal citations and quo-

tation marks omitted).
52 United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) (citations omitted).

11
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

are not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to
serve.” 53
A military judge has “considerable discretion in admitting evidence as re-
sidual hearsay.” 54 But the residual hearsay exception is intended to “be used
very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” 55 It allows for the admis-
sion of otherwise excludable hearsay statements, even if not specifically cov-
ered by another hearsay exception, provided the following conditions are met:
(1) the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trust-
worthiness—after considering the totality of the circumstances
under which it is made and evidence, if any, corroborating the
statement; and (2) the statement is more probative on the point
for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent
can obtain through reasonable efforts. 56
Our superior Court has summarized (and reordered) these threshold require-
ments as “(1) materiality, (2) necessity, and (3) reliability.” 57
Materiality “is a multi-factored test looking at the importance of the issue
for which the evidence was offered in relation to the other issues in th[e] case;
the extent to which the issue is in dispute; and the nature of the other evidence
in the case pertaining to th[at] issue.” 58
The necessity prong “may be satisfied where a witness cannot remember or
refuses to testify about a material fact and there is no other more probative
evidence of that fact.” 59 While residual hearsay may be “somewhat cumulative,
it may be important in evaluating other evidence and arriving at the truth so

53 Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted).

54 United States v. Donaldson, 58 M.J. 477, 488 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (citation and inter-

nal quotations omitted).
55 Czachorowski, 66 M.J. at 435 n.6 (quoting S. Rep. No. 1277 (1974), as reprinted

in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7051, 7066) (citation omitted).
56 Mil. R. Evid. 807(a).

57 United States v. Kelley, 45 M.J. 275, 280 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (citations omitted).

While this summary was of the previous version of the residual hearsay rule, we find
it equally applicable to the current version.
58 United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314, 318 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (citations and in-

ternal quotation marks omitted).
59 United States v. Wellington, 58 M.J. 420, 425 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (citations omitted).

12
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

that the ‘more probative’ requirement cannot be interpreted with cast iron ri-
gidity.” 60
Reliability is determined through the weighing of “particularized guaran-
tees of trustworthiness . . . drawn from the totality of circumstances that sur-
round the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly
worthy of belief.” 61 These include such factors as the age and mental state of
the declarant; the spontaneity and repetition of the statement; the circum-
stances under which the statement was made; whether suggestive questioning
was used; the presence or lack of a motive to fabricate; and whether the state-
ment is corroborated by other evidence. 62
Whether a constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is a
question of law that we reviewed de novo. 63 Constitutional error is harmless if
“it appears ‘beyond reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not con-
tribute to the verdict obtained.’” 64 For non-constitutional errors, we test for
prejudice, considering the following factors: “(1) the strength of the Govern-
ment's case, (2) the strength of the defense case, (3) the materiality of the evi-
dence in question, and (4) the quality of the evidence in question.” 65

2. Analysis
In ruling HM3 Whiskey’s confession video and letter inadmissible as sub-
stantive evidence, the military judge applied the correct law, but failed to con-
sider all important facts. In his written ruling finding the statements to be
untrustworthy, he stated that, “HM3 [Whiskey’s] recanted confession is the
only evidence Defense has pointed to indicating [HM3 Whiskey] was the
shooter” and “[t]he only possible corroborating evidence of [his] statements . . .

60 Kelley, 45 M.J. at 280 (quoting United States v. Shaw, 824 F.2d 601, 610 (8th

Cir. 1987)) (citation omitted).
61 Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 820 (1990).

62 Id. at 821-22 (citations omitted); Donaldson, 58 M.J. at 488 (citations omitted);

United States v. McGrath, 39 M.J. 158, 166-67 (C.M.A. 1994) (citations omitted).
63 Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295-96 (1991) (citations omitted); United

States v. Hall, 58 M.J. 90, 94 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (citing United States v. Walker, 57 M.J.
174, 178 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. Grijalva, 55 M.J. 223, 228 (C.A.A.F. 2001)
(citation omitted).
64 United States v. McDonald, 57 M.J. 18, 20 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (quoting Chapman v.

California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)).
65 United States v. Kerr, 51 M.J. 401, 405 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (citation omitted).

13
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

is the note he wrote to HM3 [Delta’s] parents.” 66 The clear implication is that
the military judge did not consider any of the purportedly corroborative evi-
dence cited by the Defense: (1) HM3 Whiskey was in the room when the shoot-
ing occurred; (2) HM3 Whiskey had earlier expressed some animosity regard-
ing the victim; (3) in the hours before the shooting, HM3 Whiskey had pointed
and dry-fired the pistol in the victim’s direction; (4) HM3 Whiskey’s dinner
plate, which HM3 Whiskey says he set down just prior to the shooting, was on
the coffee table next to where the forensic evidence indicates the shot origi-
nated; and (5) forensic evidence showed that HM3 Whiskey was in contact
with, or in close proximity to, a discharging firearm that night and that ex-
pected-but-absent blood spatter could indicate HM3 Whiskey was not sitting
where he said he was at the time of the shooting.
While the record is clear that these facts were of relatively weak char-
acter and overwhelmingly outweighed by the evidence supporting Appellant’s
guilt, they were still facts the military judge should have considered in his
analysis. But, had the military judge considered them, we are convinced his
ruling would not have changed. The circumstances under which the state-
ments were made—evidenced by the recording of the questioning by SA
Tango—firmly convince us of the statements’ untrustworthiness. Even consid-
ering the arguably corroborative evidence Appellant cites, we reach the same
conclusion as the military judge: HM3 Whiskey’s admission was a “false con-
fession” 67 and, therefore, inadmissible under the residual hearsay exception.
Were this simply a question of whether the military judge abused his
discretion in not admitting evidence, our analysis of this AOE would end here.
But Appellant couches the issue as one of constitutional import. Claiming the
military judge’s ruling was a denial of his Sixth Amendment right to present a
complete defense, Appellant argues the Government must show any error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree with his premise.
Appellant could, and did, present a complete defense at trial, i.e., that
it was HM3 Whiskey, not Appellant, who shot the victim. Nothing prevented
trial defense counsel from presenting the same evidence cited above as corrob-
oration of HM3 Whiskey’s confession. During cross-examination of HM3 Whis-
key, trial defense counsel: confronted HM3 Whiskey regarding contradictory
statements describing his location on the couch; explored HM3 Whiskey’s neg-
ative comments regarding the victim; showed that HM3 Whiskey had previ-
ously admitted to joking around with the Springfield 9mm and dry firing it at

66 App. Ex. CLXXXVIII at 5, 6.

67 App. Ex. CLXXXVIII at 3.

14
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

the victim that night; and established the location of HM3 Whiskey’s dinner
plate in relation to the victim’s place on the couch.
Through the cross and direct examinations of expert witnesses, trial
defense counsel offered, and the military judge admitted, evidence that the
shot could have originated from where HM3 Whiskey was sitting. The Defense
also elicited expert testimony regarding gunshot residue and blood spatter that
indicated that HM3 Whiskey may have fired the shot.
Most importantly, trial defense counsel was able to attack HM3 Whis-
key’s testimony that it was Appellant, not himself, who fired the shot. The De-
fense did so by establishing, in great detail over 13 transcribed pages of cross-
examination, that HM3 Whiskey had earlier confessed to shooting the victim. 68
Additionally, to counter testimony inculpating their client, trial defense
counsel were able to impeach the other witnesses’ testimony by eliciting ad-
missions that each had been drinking the night of the shooting and that, when
initially questioned, all denied seeing what happened or claimed that the vic-
tim had shot himself.
It is clear, then, that the military judge’s exclusion of the recording of
HM3 Whiskey’s statements to NCIS did not prevent Appellant presenting a
complete defense. His counsel simply was precluded from using false hearsay
statements to do it. We conclude this does not equate to a violation of a consti-
tutional right, but rather a reasonable restriction on that right. “[A] defendant,
who is otherwise permitted to present his defense, is [not] denied constitutional
due process of law because certain evidence—the fundamental trustworthiness
of which is wholly unestablished by the defendant—is excluded from the
trial.” 69
Finally, even were we to find the military judge abused his discretion
in not admitting the video and letter as substantive evidence under Mil.R.Evid.
807, he was correct in ruling the evidence inadmissible under Mil.R.Evid. 403.
We agree that admitting the recording of HM3 Whiskey’s interview and his
letter would be a needless waste of time. We also believe it would constitute
the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. First, the interview with SA
Tango lasted nearly four hours and was only one of several interviews of HM3
Whiskey by NCIS. Admitting the one recording would necessarily open the
door to admitting the others, as well as the potential for expert testimony re-
garding false confessions. Second, the Defense was able, mainly through cross-
examining HM3 Whiskey, to establish that HM3 had confessed to killing the

68 R. at 1266-1278.

69 United States v. Burks, 36 M.J. 447, 451 (C.M.A. 1993) (citation omitted).

15
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

victim. The recording and letter add nothing to the evidence admitted on this
issue. Thus, while a third-party confession is certainly relevant, the probative
value of the recording and letter is substantially outweighed by these consid-
erations.
Accordingly, we find this AOE to be without merit.

B. The military judge did not err in denying the challenge for implied
bias against GySgt Cool.

1. Standard of Review and Law
“Whether a prospective juror ‘is biased has traditionally been determined
through voir dire culminating in a finding by the trial judge concerning the
prospective juror's state of mind.’” 70 “[S]uch a finding is based upon determi-
nations of demeanor and credibility that are peculiarly within a trial judge's
province.” 71 “It is plainly a question of historical fact; did a juror swear that he
could set aside any opinion he might hold and decide the case on the evidence,
and should the juror’s protestation of impartiality have been believed.” 72 “[T]he
trial court's resolution of such questions is entitled, even on direct appeal, to
‘special deference.’” 73
Courts generally recognize two forms of bias that subject a panel member
to a challenge for cause: actual bias and implied bias. 74 “Actual bias is defined
as ‘bias in fact.’” 75 It is “the existence of a state of mind that leads to an infer-
ence that the person will not act with entire impartiality.” 76 “Actual bias is
personal bias which will not yield to the military judge's instructions and the

70 United States v. Hennis, 79 M.J. 370, 384 (C.A.A.F. 2020) (quoting Wainwright

v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 (1985)) (internal punctuation omitted).
71 Witt, 469 U.S. at 428.

72 Hennis, 79 M.J. at 384 (internal citation and quotation omitted).

73 Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1038 (1984) (citation omitted); see United States

v. Dockery, 76 M.J. 91, 96 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (granting great deference to the military
judge's ruling on challenges for cause).
74 United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936).

75 United States v. Woods, 74 M.J. 238, 245 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (Stucky, J., concurring)

(quoting Wood, 299 U.S. at 133).
76 Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755, 767 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (citation omitted).

16
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

evidence presented at trial.” 77 We review actual bias-based challenges for an
abuse of discretion. 78
A military judge’s resolution of challenges founded in implied bias receive
slightly less deference. While we generally give a “military judge’s ruling on a
challenge for cause . . . great deference,” 79 we review rulings on challenges for
implied bias “under a standard less deferential than abuse of discretion but
more deferential than de novo.” 80 This standard recognizes that implied bias
deals with the public’s objective perception of the fairness of the military jus-
tice system, and not simply the military judge’s assessment of whether a chal-
lenged member can serve in a fair and impartial manner. 81 “[W]e evaluate im-
plied bias objectively, through the eyes of the public, reviewing the perception
or appearance of fairness of the military justice system.” 82
We will give greater deference where a military judge puts on the record
his analysis and basis for denying a defense challenge for cause and indicates
that he considered the liberal grant mandate. 83 “Although it is not required for
a military judge to place his or her implied bias analysis on the record, doing
so is highly favored and warrants increased deference from appellate courts.” 84
This is because it provides a “vantage point of a military judge observing mem-
bers in person and asking the critical questions that might fill any implied bias
gaps left by counsel.” 85 However, a mere “[i]ncantation of the legal test [for
implied bias] without analysis is rarely sufficient in a close case.” 86 We “afford
a military judge less deference if an analysis of the implied bias challenge on

77 United States v. Nash, 71 M.J. 83, 88 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (citing United States v.

Reynolds, 23 M.J. 292, 294 (C.M.A. 1987)).
78 Id. at 88-89 (citation omitted).

79 United States v. Rolle, 53 M.J. 187, 191 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).
80 United States v. Downing, 56 M.J. 419, 422 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (citations omitted).

81 United States v. Elfayoumi, 66 M.J. 354, 356 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

82 United States v. Townsend, 65 M.J. 460, 463 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (citations and in-

ternal quotation marks omitted).
83 United States v. Clay, 64 M.J. 274, 277 (C.A.A.F. 2007).

84 Dockery, 76 M.J. at 96 (citation omitted).

85 Clay, 64 M.J. at 277.

86 Unites States v. Peters, 74 M.J. 31, 34 (C.A.A.F. 2015).

17
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

the record is not provided.” 87 In applying this standard, we look to the totality
of the circumstances. 88
“The test [for implied bias] takes into account, among other distinct mili-
tary factors, the confidence appellate courts have that military members will
be able to follow the instructions of military judges and thus, while it will often
be possible to ‘rehabilitate’ a member on a possible question of actual bias,
questions regarding the appearance of fairness may nonetheless remain.” 89
The issue, then, is whether the risk that the public will think the accused re-
ceived anything less than a fair trial is “too high.” 90
Further, the liberal grant mandate requires the military judge to err on the
side of granting a defense challenge. 91 That is, “if after weighing the arguments
for the implied bias challenge the military judge finds it a close question, the
challenge should be granted.” 92 This serves as a logical preventive measure
because “it is at the preliminary stage of the proceedings that questions involv-
ing member selection are relatively easy to rapidly address and remedy.” 93

2. Analysis
We note that, although Defense challenged GySgt Cool for both actual and
implied bias, the only issue Appellant raises on appeal is implied bias. We note,
too, that the reasons Appellant cites on appeal differ slightly from those raised
at trial. Regardless, considering all bases raised at both trial and on appeal,
we find no error.
While the military judge provided his rationale for finding GySgt Cool had
no actual bias, he conducted no implied bias analysis on the record. His only
reference to implied bias was to say he found GySgt Cool to be “a fair and im-

87 Id. (citation omitted).

88 Nash, 71 M.J. at 88.

89 Woods, 74 M.J. at 243.

90 Id. at 243-44 (citing United States v. Bagstad, 68 M.J. 460, 462 (C.A.A.F. 2010)

(quoting Townsend, 65 M.J. at 463).
91 Peters, 74 M.J. at 34 (citing United States v. Rome, 47 M.J. 467, 469 (C.A.A.F.

1998)).
92 Id.

93 Id. (citing Clay, 64 M.J. at 277).

18
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

partial member, even considering implied bias and the liberal grant man-
date.” 94 Accordingly, we give little deference to the military judge’s ruling on
the implied bias challenge.
Appellant first claims the public could question GySgt Cool’s ability to be
fair and impartial because he had likely already reached a judgment as to what
occurred. As proof, Appellant says GySgt Cool “used this case online as a ‘teach-
ing moment’ for how not to behave,” “used those facts as a ‘teaching moment’
with his Marines,” and, when thinking about this case, was prompted “to use
it as a teaching moment for his Marines regarding their weapons handling
safety.” 95 This may cause us concern but for the fact these statements are com-
pletely unsupported by the record.
During individual voir dire, GySgt Cool recalled reading several years prior
“that there was a corpsman that was shot and that there might possibly be
some issues with the circumstances that went down with it. And that’s pretty
much as far as I know.” 96 He recalled discussing the case with his master ser-
geant. Their discussion “naturally progressed” to speaking about weapons
safety, as both are combat instructors. 97 When asked by trial defense counsel
if he was “thinking of this as a teaching moment for [him]self and [his] Ma-
rines,” GySgt Cool agreed. He summarized the discussion as “a staff sergeant
and a master sergeant talking about guns and gun safety,” saying weapons
safety rules are “just something innate in our nature to discuss and talk
about.” 98 He stated that the weapons safety discussion was prompted by the
case but that they only “[t]alked about it in an overarching manner.” 99 This is
a far cry from “us[ing] those facts as a ‘teaching moment’ with his Marines.”
Appellant next points to GySgt Cool’s “innate in our nature” comment and
his statement that he was “losing [his] mind” thinking about the weapons
training his Marines were then conducting in the field. 100 Appellant cites this
as evidence of GySgt Cool’s “pronounced and distinct familiarity” with weapons

94 R. at 798.

95 Appellant’s Br. at 4, 16-17, 48-49.

96 R. at 715-16. At trial, the Defense argued that, since GySgt Cool may have seen

something about this case on social media, he may have been exposed to posts created
by the victim’s family. But here is no evidence in the record to support this speculation.
97 R. at 722.

98 R. at 723.

99 R. at 724.

100 R. at 723.

19
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

safety, arguing that this could raise questions regarding his ability to be objec-
tive in this case. 101 We disagree, as following this logic would lead us to absurd
results. Given the critical importance of weapons safety in the Marine Corps,
we would need to conclude the public could reasonably question any Marine’s
ability to be fair and impartial in any court-martial involving allegations of
unsafe weapons handling. We decline to do so.
Appellant also argues that GySgt Cool’s recent discussion of the case could
raise concerns over his ability to be fair and impartial. Here, too, we disagree.
When notified that he and four other senior members of his unit would be po-
tential members at Appellant’s trial, he discussed the court-martial with his
executive officer, but only regarding the impact the absence of their unit’s lead-
ership would have on the mission. The facts of the case “didn’t really come
up.” 102
We find none of these matters, individually or collectively, would lead the
public to reasonably question the perceived fairness of military justice or the
proceedings in this case with GySgt Cool sitting as a member. This is not a
close case; the liberal grant mandate is not in play. Accordingly, we hold that
the military judge did not err in denying the Defense’s challenge to GySgt Cool.

C. The military judge did not abuse his discretion by denying the De-
fense’s continuance request.
Appellant argues the military judge erroneously denied trial defense coun-
sel’s continuance request when Appellant’s expert consultant contracted
COVID-19 before trial. We disagree here, as well.

1. Standard of Review and Law
“A military’s judge’s decision to grant or deny a continuance must be tested
for an abuse of discretion . . . .” 103 Military judges abuse their discretion when
their reasons for denial are “clearly untenable” and “deprive a party of a sub-
stantial right such as to amount to a denial of justice.” 104

101 Appellant’s Br. at 50.

102 R. at 719.

103 United States v. Miller, 47 M.J. 352, 358 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (citation omitted).

104 Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted).

20
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

Article 40, UCMJ, authorizes a military judge to grant a continuance “for
as long and as often as is just.” 105 To determine whether a military judge
abused his or her discretion in denying a continuance request, we consider the
following factors listed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces [C.A.A.F.]
in United States v. Miller:
surprise, nature of any evidence involved, timeliness of the re-
quest, substitute testimony or evidence, availability of witness
or evidence requested, length of continuance, prejudice to oppo-
nent, moving party received prior continuances, good faith of
moving party, use of reasonable diligence by moving party, pos-
sible impact on verdict, and prior notice. 106
Appellate courts need not decide if a military judge abused his or her dis-
cretion denying a continuance where an appellant fails to establish preju-
dice. 107

2. Analysis
We begin and end our present analysis with the question of prejudice. Ap-
pellant claims no actual prejudice and we find none. Yet Appellant asks us to
disregard this, as the Miller test’s penultimate factor regarding denial of a con-
tinuance requires only the possibility of an impact on the verdict. We are un-
persuaded.
The test the military judge applied was the correct one. Not being clairvoy-
ant, it was proper for the military judge, when weighing whether to grant a
continuance, to consider whether there was the possibility of prejudice. But, in
evaluating whether the military judge’s denial of the continuance was prejudi-
cial error, we have the benefit of hindsight, i.e., the record before us.
The military judge left open the door to reconsider his ruling if the arrange-
ment he imposed proved unworkable or inadequate. He advised counsel to
“keep the Court apprised of what [Mr. Clark’s] status is. If we have to make
any adjustments down the line, I’ll consider those.” 108 Yet, other than the ini-
tial motion and the related hearing regarding the continuance request, trial
defense counsel was silent on the issue throughout the trial.

105 United States v. Parker, 75 M.J. 603, 613 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting

R.C.M. 906(b)(1), Discussion).
106 Miller, 47 M.J. at 358 (internal citation omitted).

107 Wellington, 58 M.J. at 425.

108 R. at 480.

21
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

The record clearly shows that Mr. Clark participated telephonically during
the entire two-day presentation of the Government’s case. And he was present
and testified in person during the Defense’s case. Neither trial defense counsel
nor Mr. Clark claimed that the arrangement impaired the latter’s ability to
evaluate Government testimony or other evidence, to effectively consult with
trial defense counsel, or to provide expert testimony on Appellant’s behalf.
Throughout the trial, there was no indication that the military judge’s solution
to the problem was in fact inadequate or in any way prejudiced Appellant. And
Appellant offers no such evidence on appeal.
We note that, in applying the now-eponymous factors in Miller, the
C.A.A.F. discussed evidence in the record of both possible and actual prejudice:
Where a military judge denies a continuance request made for
the purpose of obtaining civilian counsel, prejudice to the ac-
cused is likely. Certainly in this case, where defense counsel had
so little time to prepare, it would be difficult to find harmless
error. During oral argument before this Court, [civilian counsel]
articulated a number of actions he would have taken at the post-
trial hearing if the continuance had been granted and he had
represented Miller at the post-trial hearing. Considering those
reasonable actions which were not taken and the on-the-record
admission that detailed defense counsel was unprepared for the
post-trial hearing, we conclude that Miller was prejudiced. 109
Given the substantially different issue and facts before us—denial of a con-
tinuance to allow an expert witness to attend all parts of the trial in-person—
we encounter no such difficulty in finding harmless error. And, given the com-
plete absence of any evidence of how denial of the continuance actually affected
the trial, we find no prejudice. Accordingly, we find this AOE without merit.

III. CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the record and the briefs, as well as the ex-
cellent arguments of appellate counsel, we have determined that the findings
and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudi-
cial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 110
However, we note that the Entry of Judgment does not accurately reflect
the disposition of the charges in that in summary description of the offenses do

109 Miller, 47 M.J. at 359.

110 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ.

22
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Opinion of the Court

not include the dates of the offenses. 111 Although we find no prejudice, Appel-
lant is entitled to have court-martial records that correctly reflect the content
of his proceeding. 112 In accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2), we
modify the Entry of Judgment and direct that it be included in the record.
The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON
Clerk of Court

111 United States v. Wadaa, __ M.J. __, No. 202300273, 2024 CCA LEXIS 148 (N-

M. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 25, 2024).
112 United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998).

23
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Modified Entry of Judgment

UNITED STATES NMCCA NO. 202300228

v. ENTRY
OF
Edmond A. MAEBANE III JUDGMENT
Hospital Corpsmen
Second Class (E-5) As Modified on Appeal
United States Navy
Accused
3 May 2024

On 8 June 2022, the Accused was tried at Marine Corps Base Camp Pend-
leton, California, by a general court-martial, consisting of officer and enlisted
members. Military Judge Stephen F. Keane.

FINDINGS

The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s findings to all of-
fenses the convening authority referred to trial:

Charge I: Violation of Article 119, Uniform Code of Military
Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 919.
Plea: Not Guilty.
Finding: Guilty.

Specification: Involuntary Manslaughter on or about 16
August 2019.
Plea: Not Guilty.
Finding: Guilty.

Additional Charge I: Violation of Article 114, Uniform Code of
Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 914.
Plea: Not Guilty.
Finding: Guilty.

1
 United States v. Maebane III, NMCCA No. 202200223
Modified Entry of Judgment

Specification: Reckless Endangerment, handling a loaded
firearm after consuming alcohol, on or about 16
August 2019.
Plea: Not Guilty.
Finding: Guilty.

SENTENCE

On 16 June 2022, a panel of officer and enlisted members sentenced the
Accused to the following:
A dishonorable discharge.
Reduction in grade to E-1.
Total forfeitures of all pay and allowances.
Confinement for a total of six (6) years.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON
Clerk of Court

2