to raise the issue of apparent unlawful influence, an accused must demonstrate the following: (a) facts, which if true, constitute unlawful command influence; and (b) this unlawful command influence placed an “intolerable strain” on the public’s perception of the military justice system because “an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would harbor a significant doubt about the fairness of the proceeding,” Id. at 249 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). Appellant argues that apparent unlawful influence existed because Judge Hecker was inappropriately removed from reviewing his case. Brief for Appellant at 9-11, Shea, No. 16-0530 (C.A.A.F. Oct. 14, 2016) (citing United States v. Salyer, 72 M.J. 415, 428 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (<HOLDING>)). In order to support this argument he alleges
holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that apparent unlawful influence exists where a military judge is removed through the inappropriate actions of the government holding that apparent eligibility exists where the record raises a reasonable possibility that the petitioner may be eligible for relief holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists holding that such a duty exists