Page:Title 3 CFR 2002 Compilation.djvu/245

 EO 13262 Title 3--The President h. The Analysis to paragraph 52(e) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "2002 Amendment: The monetary amount affecting the maximum pun- ishments has been revised from $100 to $500 to account for inflation. The last change was in 1969 raising the amount to $100. The value has also been readjusted to realign it more closely with the division between felony and misdemeanor penalties in civilian jurisdictions. See generally Amer- ican Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries \365 223.1 (1980) (suggesting $500 as the value). A value of $500 was chosen to maintain de- terrence, simplicity, and uniformity for the Manual's property offenses. 18 U.S.C. \365 81, Arson within speciu] rnuritirne und territoriul jurisdiction, no ]onger grades the offense on the basis of va]ue.". i. The Ana]ysis to paragraph 58(e) is amended by adding at the end the fo]- ]owing new paragraph: "2002 Amendment: The monetary amount affecting the maximum pun- ishments has been revised from $100 to $500 to account for inflation. The ]ast change was in 1969 raising the amount to $100. The va]ue has a]so been readjusted to rea]ign it more c]ose]y with the division between fe]ony and misdemeanor pena]ties in civi]ian jurisdictions. See generully Amer- ican Law Institute, Mode] Pena] Code and Commentaries \365 223.1 (1980) (suggesting $500 as the va]ue).". j. The Ana]ysis to paragraph 62. Artic]e 134 '(Adu]tery) is amended to read as follows: "c. Explanation. (1) Subparagraph c(2) is based on United States. v. Sny- der, 4 C.M.R. 15 (1952); United States v. l\177uiz, 46 M.J. 5O3 (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. 1997); United States v. Green, 39 M.J. 606 (A.C.M.R. 1994); United States v. Collier, 36 M.J. 501 (A.F.C.M.R. 1992); United States v. Perez, 33 M.J. 1050 (A.C.M.R. 1991); United States v. Linnear, 16 M.J. 628 (A.F.C.M.R. 1983); Part IV, paragraph 60c(2)(a) of MCM. Subparagraph c(3) is based on United States v. Poole, 39 M.J. 819 (A.C.M.R. 1994). Subpara- graph c(4) is based on United States v. Fogarty, 35 M.J. 885 (A.C.M.R. 1992); Military Judges' Benchbook, DA PAM 27-9, paragraph 3-62-1 and 5-11-2 (30 Sep. 1996). See R.C.M. 916(j) and (1)(1) for a general discussion of mistake of fact and ignorance, which cannot be based on a negligent fail- ure to discover the true facts. "(2) When determining whether adulterous acts constitute the offense of adultery under Article 134, commanders should consider the listed factors. Each commander has discretion to dispose of offenses by members of the command. As with any alleged offense, however, under R.C.M. 306(b) com- manders should dispose of an allegation of adultery at the lowest appro- priate level. As the R.C.M. 306(b) discussion states, many factors must be taken into consideration and balanced, including, to the extent practicable, the nature of the offense, any mitigating or extenuating circumstances, the character and military service of the military member, any recommenda- tions made by subordinate commanders, the interests of justice, military ex- igencies, and the effect of the decision on the military member and the command. The goal should be a disposition that is warranted, appropriate, and fair. In the case of officers, also consult the explanation to paragraph 59 in deciding how to dispose of an allegation of adultery.". k. The Analysis to paragraph 78(e) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 232

�