Initially the case was sent back because appellant’s case was decided before his counsel submitted a brief, and because the chief judge on his panel had made some public comments relating to the case.

This time the case goes back because the chief judge also recommended his temporary successor for the Roach case, thus violating the principal that a recused judge should have no further contact with the case.

CAAF found appellant’s sentence disparity argument mooted by having the case returned to AFCCA on the first issue.

CAAF found appellant’s appellate discovery issue about the communications between the chief judge and appellate government moot.

CAAF found appellant’s post-trial speedy review issue in which he claimed malicious delay did not satisfy Barker.