I. WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA TO DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WAS IMPROVIDENT, AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT DELIVERED ANY UNLAWFUL IMAGES TO ANYONE?NMCCA directed counsel to be prepared to discuss how Issue I is affected by United States v. Kuemmerle, 67 M.J. 141 (C.A.A.F. 2009).
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE DID NOT DECLARE SUA SPONTE THAT THE OFFENSES OF RECEIVING AND POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WERE MULTIPLICIOUS?
I look forward to seeing whether the argument is posted online and, if so, listening to it while enjoying a refreshing beverage.