we are still required to give every sentence in the Hutchins opinion its full effect. Thus, we must decide whether the particular sentence in Hutchins that the military judge considered critical to his analysis (“The Edwards rule ... prohibits further ‘communication, exchanges or conversations’ that may ... lead to further interrogation”) is dictum or part of its core holding. See generally United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F.2013) (stating that if particular words in a Supreme Court opinion are part of its core holding, the CAAF “is required to follow” it) (Stucky, J., concurring in the result). If this particular sentence is part of Hutchins’s core holding, we are required to follow it, or distinguish it. See United States v. Allbery, 44 M.J. 226, 228 (C.A.A.F.1996) (<HOLDING>). Admittedly, it is at first glance difficult
holding that courts of appeals must review the statelaw determinations of district courts de novo  recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to apply supreme court precedent even though the reasoning of that precedent had been eroded by subsequent decisions holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision holding that courts of criminal appeals must follow caaf precedent regardless of circumstances