1. In 2021, Congress added a new subsection to Article 67(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 867(c). The new language incorporated factual sufficiency review into the portion of the statute pertaining to the review authority of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). In United States v. Csiti, 85 M.J. 414 (C.A.A.F. 2025), the CAAF concluded that the new language did not allow it to conduct factual sufficiency review.

The first question presented is:

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to hold that a conviction is factually insufficient under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c)(1)(C).

2. In courts-martial, the entry of judgment (EOJ) under 10 U.S.C. § 860c is the final judgment, marking the beginning of the post-trial process. In the Air Force, a First Indorsement memorandum summarizes criminal indexing requirements. It reflects a legal determination about whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 applies to the convicted servicemember and effectuates a restriction of their Second Amendment rights. Despite statutory authority under Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2), to correct post-judgment processing errors, the CAAF decided that military courts cannot correct indicated firearms prohibitions.

The second question presented is:

Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 860c and 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to hold that a conviction is factually insufficient under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c)(1)(C)