CAAFlog, we're currently seeing the Court grant quite a few Fosler trailer cases raising the issue below:
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S RECENT OPINIONS IN MEDINA, MILLER, AND JONES.
Per CAAF practice, CAAF will grant review of the trailer cases, but it won't require full briefing of the issue in the trailers because the outcome of the main case will determine the outcome of the trailers.
One of CAAFlog's avid readers noted that CAAF is building a trailer park of Fosler cases. Having grown up in Tornado Alley, I'm familiar with twisters' affinities for trailer parks. It's a good thing the CAAF courthouse has a basement.