Perplexing petition

The Supremes yesterday docketed a new military cert petition: United States v. Almejo, No. 07-955. But this is strange -- CAAF denied Petty Officer Almejo's petition for grant of review. United States v. Almejo, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0237/NA (C.A.A.F. Oct. 18, 2007).

In a sharply worded opinion (as usual, unavailable online but available on NKO; here's a link), the Navy-Marine Corps Court denounced Almejo's first two issues as "frivolous" and the third as "meritless." United States v. Almejo, No. NMCCA 200501051 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 29, 2006) (per curiam). As noted above, CAAF then denied his petition for grant of review.

Almejo then filed a cert petition. Of course, the Supremes have no statutory cert jurisdiction in such a case. "The Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in refusing to grant a petition for review." UCMJ art. 67a, 10 U.S.C. § 867a.

Now here's the even stranger part. Almejo is represented by a civilian counsel -- J. Byron Holcomb. Why would a civilian counsel file a cert petition in a case where the Supremes have no jurisdiction? (For that matter, why would any counsel file a cert petition in a case where the Supremes have no jurisdiction?)