error occurring during a sentence hearing. I did not agree with this movement to create courts of equity, not of law, in our subordinate court system. United States v. Claxton, supra at 165 (Sullivan, C.J., concurring in part and in the result). More recently, in United States v. Quiroz, 55 MJ 334, 338-39 (2001), a majority of this Court even went so far as to permit the appellate court below to ignore the law of multiplicity in granting findings relief while vaguely citing the service appellate court’s power under Article 66(e), UCMJ. This aberrant line of decisions should not be extended here to hold that the Courts of Criminal Appeals may also flout the law on post-trial delay in discharging their sentence approval function. See United States v. Hutchison, 57 MJ 231 (2002)(<HOLDING>). Article 66(c), UCMJ, was not intended by
holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding a court of criminal appeals may not exercise its sentence approval powers to criticize a state court conviction holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals holding that a court of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence