CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MARCHAND - 56 MJ 630UNITED STATES V MARCHAND - 56 MJ 630 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1112Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/5/200112/5/20018/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MARANJE - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V MARANJE - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1350Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/11/20125/11/20129/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MAKSIN - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V MAKSIN - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1430Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 1/30/20171/30/20179/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MAHONEY - PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the following offenses: three specifications of unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, but suspended execution of the confinement in excess of 60 days for a period of six months, in accordance with the pretrial agreement. The Convening Authority also credited Appellant with 65 days of confinement against the sentence of confinement. Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.Docket No. 1183Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/27/20038/27/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MADIGAR - 46 MJ 802UNITED STATES V MADIGAR - Court of Criminal Appeal DecisionDocket No. 1056Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/5/19976/5/19978/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LUCAS - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of wrongful distribution of marijuana, one specification of wrongful introduction of marijuana onto a military installation, and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to forfeiture of $500 per month for six months, reduction to E-3, and a bad conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence.Docket No. 1310Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/22/200912/22/200910/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LOYA PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of wrongfully using cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and one specification of wrongfully using marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of wrongfully possessing a military identification card that he knew to be false, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for thirty days, forfeiture of $500 pay per month for one month, and reduction to E-3. The sentence was unaffected by the pretrial agreement, and the Convening Authority approved it as adjudged.Docket No. 1248Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/6/20062/6/200610/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LONGWELL PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of two specifications of making false official statements, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 150 days. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence.Docket No. 1231Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/3/20056/3/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LIVINGSTONE 78 M.J. 619Members sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of sexual assault, one specification of extortion (which the military judge later conditionally dismissed), and two specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Articles 120, 127, and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to dismissal and confinement for eight years, which the Convening Authority approved. Appellant now asserts the following: (1) The evidence was factually insufficient to support one of his two sexual assault convictions; (2) The military judge abused his discretion when ruling on the admissibility of evidence under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412; (3) The evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support both convictions for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; (4) The military judge reversibly erred by failing to instruct on mens rea with regard to the conduct unbecoming charges; (5) The prosecutor committed misconduct when she undertook a discovery obligation she would not normally have and failed to exercise due diligence in executing that obligation, to Appellant’s prejudice; and (6) Participation by a Special Victims’ Counsel amounted to private counsel providing unauthorized assistance to the trial counsel, to Appellant’s prejudice.Docket No. 1448Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/5/201810/5/201810/15/2018
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LINDSEY - 67 MJ 774Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of dishonorably failing to pay a debt, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for 120 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.Docket No. 1295Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/12/20096/12/200910/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LIND - UNPUBLISHEDThis case was previously decided by this Court on 31 January 2007. The Court found, in part, that although Appellant failed to show that he was unrepresented by his trial defense counsel during any portion of the post-trial phase of the case, his defense counsel was deficient in failing to contact Appellant regarding clemency. As a result, the Court granted relief.Docket No. 1228Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/7/20079/7/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LIND - 64 MJ 611Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the following offenses: one specification of wrongfully using ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance, and one specification of wrongfully distributing ecstasy, both in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a; one specification of conspiring to possess, use, and distribute ecstasy, in violation of Article 81, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 881; and one specification of making a false official statement with intent to deceive, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 907. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $938.00 pay per month for four months, confinement for four months, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence.Docket No. 1228Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/31/20071/31/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LIBECAP - 59 MJ 561On 30 August 2002, this Court affirmed the findings of guilty in this case, but set aside that portion of the Convening Authority’s action relating to the sentence, due to an improper provision in the pretrial agreement requiring Appellant to request a bad conduct discharge (BCD). United States v. Libecap, 57 M.J. 611, 618 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). The record was returned to the Convening Authority who was authorized to disapprove the adjudged sentence of a BCD, confinement for six months, forfeiture of $1,134.00 pay per month for six months, and reduction to E-1, and order a sentence rehearing, or he could approve either the sentence previously approved, minus the BCD, or a lesser sentence without the BCD. The Convening Authority chose to disapprove the sentence and order a sentence rehearing. Consistent with our decision, the original pretrial agreement remained in effect absent the improper provision. At the rehearing before a judge alone, the military judge imposed a BCD, confinement for 125 days, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for a BCD, confinement for 100 days, and reduction to E-1, with credit given for 100 days confinement previously served following the original sentence. The Convening Authority also expressly waived, in favor of Appellant’s dependent, any forfeitures arising by operation of Article 58b, UCMJ. Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.Docket No. 1154Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/15/20038/15/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LIBECAP - 57 MJ 608UNITED STATES V LIBECAP - 57 MJ 608 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1154Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/30/20028/30/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUnited States V LELAND (UNPUBLISHED)United States V LELAND (UNPUBLISHED) Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1357Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/23/20131/23/20139/18/2017
Page 16 of 34

Oral Arguments


Pursuant to U.S. Department of Defense Standard carrying out Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice [10 U.S.C. s. 940a] (revised, January 2025), an audio recording of an oral argument will typically be made publicly accessible. Audio recordings for oral arguments after the effective date of this new rule (January 2025) are below. As part of this requirement, a military service provides a mechanism by which a written transcript may be made available upon request. Contact HQS-DG-LST-CG-LMJ@uscg.mil with the reason for the request. 

 

Parties Docket Audio File Date
U.S. v. Ray 1498 MP3 2025/05/13
U.S. v. Kelley 1495 MP3 2025/03/26