the guilty pleas. Thus, the military judge did not abuse his discretion by accepting appellant’s pleas. Recognizing the serious consequences that can result from indiscipline within military confinement facilities, this court’s decision is consistent with the President’s goal of giving greater protection to individuals performing law enforcement functions. Such protection is essential to the efficacy of the mission of our military penal institutions. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 n. 18, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975). All USDB cadre, including cooks, while performing their USDB duties which include providing for the custody, control, and discipline of USDB inmates, should benefit from this protection. See United States v. Green, 927 F.2d 1005, 1008 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); but see United States v. Walker, 202 F.3d
holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury not to draw any adverse inferences from the governments failure to call a witness because the witness did not have a relationship with the government such that one would expect him to give testimony in favor of the government holding the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that the plaintiff could be awarded damages for anxiety mental anguish and loss of consortium for a violation of the kentucky act holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that the duties of a federal prison employee even a food service worker extend to safekeeping protection and discipline  holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted