I.
APPELLATE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION. IS PETITIONER'S APPEAL LEGALLY ADEQUATE? DUE PROCESS VIOLATION. IN LIGHT OF IN RE BUBER, 62 MJ 227 (CAAF 2015), T.A.R.F. V. UNITED STATES, 2016 CCA LEXIS 394 (CAAF 2016), UNITED STATES V. LABELLA, 75 MJ 52 (CAAF 2015), UNITED STATES V. RILEY, 58 MJ 305 (CAAF 2003), AND UNITED STATES V. HUMPHRIES, 2011 CCA LEXIS 312 (AFCCA 2011), PETITIONER DID NOT RECEIVE AN APPELLATE REVIEW BECAUSE THE FIRST APPELLATE DECISION WAS ILLEGAL AND THE RECONSIDERATION DECISION WAS MADE WITHOUT THE CASE BEING VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR A NEW AND FULL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 66, UCMJ. NO VALID REMAND EXISTS FOR AFCCA TO TAKE ANY ACTIONS AFTER PETITIONER REQUESTED GRANT OF REVIEW TO THE CAAF. THE APPEAL IS NOT FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 66, 70, 71, AND 76, UCMJ, 10 USC §866, §870, §871, AND §876. THE MILITARY COURT HAS NOT GIVEN FAIR CONSIDERATION TO PETITIONER'S CLAIMS.

II.
IF THIS COURT DECLARES THAT IT CANNOT REVIEW PETITIONER'S CLAIMS, TO WHO AND IN WHAT FORM DOES HE SUBMIT HIS ISSUES TO?

III.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE: IS RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 707 (R.C.M. 707) AND ARTICLE 10, UCMJ, 10 USC §810 DEFECTIVE, VAGUE, AND REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHERE A WAIVER OF ARTICLE 10/RCM 707 MUST BE KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY? LACK OF JURISDICTION, SIXTH AMENDMENT, ARTICLE 10 AND RCM 707 SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATIONS.

IV.
THE MILITARY HAS NOT GIVEN FAIR CONSIDERATION TO PETITIONER'S CLAIMS

V.
WAS APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE DURING SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER'S GROSTEFON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL SUBMISSION?

VI.
WAS TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE DURING TRIAL PROCEEDINGS?

VII.
MATERIAL VARIANCE BETWEEN CHARGED OFFENSE AND JURY FINDINGS. PETITIONER WAS NOT ASKED TO PLEAD ANEW TO THE CHANGES. DUE PROCESS VIOLATION.

VIII.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE: ARE ARTICLES 120, AND 125, UCMJ AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE CONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND IS THE PRESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN AND CONCLUDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE AN ESSENTIAL FACT/ELEMENT TO CONVICT PETITIONER THAT MUST BE DISMISSED?

IX.
GOVERNMENT DID NOT DISPROVE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

X.
VIOLATION OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO SPEEDY APPELLATE REVIEW.

Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted