United States v. First Lieutenant DAHUD HANID-ORTIZ, ARMY 20140288

Appellant, a former enlisted soldier who later commissioned as an officer, pleaded guilty to fraudulent appointment (Article 83), false official statement (Article 107), and larceny (Article 121).
He submitted falsified documents to obtain a commission and repeatedly used a fabricated New York City home address to receive higher Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), obtaining over $87,000 improperly.
The military judge sentenced appellant to a dismissal, six months confinement, total forfeitures, and a $25,000 fine (with additional confinement if not paid); the convening authority approved the sentence.
At a post-trial "bridging the gap" session, the military judge made comments linking dismissal to the nature of the offenses; defense later argued those comments demonstrated bias toward imposing a dismissal.
The defense submitted affidavits claiming the judge said he "could not envision" a case of false appointment where dismissal would not be adjudged; the military judge and trial counsel submitted MFRs denying or contextualizing that absolute wording.
Appellant sought relief via R.C.M. 1105; the convening authority denied relief and the appellant argued apparent judicial bias on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the military judge's post-trial comments demonstrated apparent bias requiring disqualification or relief	Judge stated he "could not envision" a false-appointment case where dismissal would not be adjudged, showing inelastic predisposition and depriving appellant of an impartial sentencing consideration	Judge's remarks were contextual, advisory to counsel about connecting punishment to conduct, and he considered dismissal as an option (not predetermined)	No apparent bias; comments viewed in context showed the judge had an open mind and did not undermine impartiality or fairness
Whether a DuBay evidentiary hearing was required to resolve factual disputes about the judge's statements	Affidavits from defense counsel warranted an evidentiary hearing to test bias claims	Record (MFRs and affidavits) and appellate filings made the alleged facts improbable; a hearing not necessary	No DuBay hearing required; appellate record sufficiently resolves the issue

United States v. Martinez, 70 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (accused's right to an impartial judge)
United States v. Butcher, 56 M.J. 87 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (impartiality standard)
United States v. Quintanilla, 56 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (importance of judicial impartiality in courts-martial)
United States v. Allen, 33 M.J. 209 (C.M.A. 1991) (burden to show factual basis for disqualification)
United States v. Burton, 52 M.J. 223 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (appearance-of-bias test in context of trial conduct)
United States v. Reynolds, 24 M.J. 261 (C.M.A. 1987) (precedent on judge questioning and appearance of bias)
United States v. Norfleet, 53 M.J. 262 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (objective standard for disqualification under R.C.M. 902(a))
United States v. Kincheloe, 14 M.J. 40 (C.M.A. 1982) (appearance standard discussion)
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (appearance standard and public confidence in judicial integrity)
United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (1997) (standards for DuBay hearings)
DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967) (post-trial fact-finding procedure)
United States v. Greaves, 48 M.J. 885 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (judge need only consider sentencing options, not adopt defense position)