• TJAG Home Page
  • CGCCA Home Page
  • Oral Argument Schedule
  • Appellate Briefs
  • Court Opinions
  • Court Orders
  • CGCCA Rules of Appellate Procedure with JRAP (Mar 2025)
CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V THOMPSON - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V THOMPSON - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1338Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 7/11/20117/11/20119/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MINYEN - 57 MJ 804UNITED STATES V MINYEN - 57 MJ 804 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1172Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/23/200212/23/20029/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V RENDON - 57 MJ 795UNITED STATES V RENDON - 57 MJ 795 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1168Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/26/200211/26/20029/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V EDENHOFER - PER CURIAMUNITED STATES V EDENHOFER - PER CURIAM Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1170Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/26/200211/26/20029/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MEO - 57 MJ 744UNITED STATES V MEO - 57 MJ 744 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1167Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/22/200211/22/20029/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V NEASE - PER CURIAMUNITED STATES V NEASE - PER CURIAM Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1166Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/6/200211/6/20029/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BERNARD - 69 MJ 694UNITED STATES V BERNARD - 69 MJ 694 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of two specifications of wrongful sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; and one specification each of indecent assault and indecent language, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to restriction for two months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence except for the restriction.Docket No. 1328Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/21/201012/21/20109/21/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V KOWALSKI - 69 MJ 705UNITED STATES V KOWALSKI - 69 MJ 705 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion Appellant was tried by general 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 attempting to communicate indecent language to minors, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and four specifications of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251 by enticing or attempting to entice a minor to produce child pornography, two specifications of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252A by possessing child pornography, three specifications of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) by attempting to engage a minor in illegal sexual activity, and one specification of communicating indecent language, all in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for sixty-five months, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, but suspended confinement in excess of thirty months for twelve months after release from confinement, pursuant to the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1330Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/15/201012/15/20109/21/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BOND - 69 MJ 701UNITED STATES V BOND - 69 MJ 701 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of assault and battery, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification each of drunk and disorderly conduct and indecent language, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1 and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1314Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/23/201011/23/20109/21/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V CUDJOE - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V CUDJOE - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - Opinion Appellant was tried by special court-martial composed of officer members. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, Appellant was convicted of one specification of failure to obey a general order or regulation and one specification of failure to obey an order, both in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was also convicted of one specification of disrespect toward a superior petty officer, in violation of Article 91, UCMJ; one specification of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; two specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; and one specification of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1029 and one specification of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1344, both in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for seventy days; reduction to E-2; a fine of $1500 and in the event the fine is not paid, confinement for ninety days; and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1326Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/19/201011/19/20109/21/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HUDSON - 58 MJ 830UNITED STATES V HUDSON - 58 MJ 830 Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of one specification of wrongful possession of Oxycondone Hydrochloride (OxyContin), a schedule II controlled substance, and one specification of wrongful use of OxyContin, in violation of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of unauthorized absence for two days, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; one specification of failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully possessing four bottles of liquor in his barracks room, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful appropriation of military property of a value in excess of $100, in violation of Article 121,UCMJ; and one specification of breaking restriction when he commenced his unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.Docket No. 1159Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/30/20036/30/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V Drews - Per CuriamAppellant was tried by general 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 violating a lawful general order, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of sodomy with a child, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful solicitation to commit an indecent act, two specifications of an indecent act upon a child, and two specifications of indecent liberties with a child, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for seven years, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence but, in accordance with the pretrial agreement, suspended execution of the confinement in excess of fifty-five months for a period of fifty-five months from the date the sentence was adjudged. 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. The Government, having examined the record, submits that the findings and sentence are correct in fact and law.Docket No. 1181Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals7/16/20037/16/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V DATZ - 59 MJ 510Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members. Contrary to his pleas of not guilty, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of striking a Petty Officer and one specification of treating a Petty Officer with contempt in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); three specifications of dereliction of duty and one specification of violating a lawful general regulation in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of rape in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; and one specification of unlawful entry in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The members sentenced Appellant to reduction to pay grade E-3 and confinement for three months. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard referred the record to this Court pursuant to Article 69(d), UCMJ.Docket No. 001-69-01Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/6/20038/6/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsHIGGINS V RADM DG GABEL - ORDERAs recounted in the petition, Petitioner was tried by a general court-martial composed of members. He was found guilty of violating Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ). He was sentenced by members to reduction to E-2, restriction to Training Center Cape May for 60 days, and hard labor without confinement for 60 days. The convening authority’s action, dated 13 January 2003, approved and ordered executed so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to pay grade E-2, restriction to Training Center Cape May for 58 days, and hard labor without confinement for 58 days. On 13 January 2003, the convening authority issued a “Letter of Restriction” to Petitioner. The “Letter of Restriction” states that Petitioner’s restriction will begin on 13 January 2003 and will last for 58 days, to end on 11 March 2003; that Petitioner be restricted to Coast Guard Training Center Cape May; that each day of restriction the Petitioner will muster four times a day in the proper uniform of the day; and while restricted Petitioner is not to enter or take advantage of or use the following: gymnasium, auditorium and any recreational facilities located on the Training Center, unless for official business. In addition to these written terms of restriction, Petitioner was verbally advised at various times that he was not allowed to have visitors, could have visitors for two hours in the evening and, most recently, that he could have visitors for one hour in the evening.MISC. DOCKET No. 001-03Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/21/20032/21/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BRIDGES - 58 MJ 540Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer members. Contrary to his pleas, he was convicted of two specifications of indecent acts with a child in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of rape of a child under age 12 in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; and one specification of forcible sodomy upon a child under age 12 in violation of Article 125, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 22 years, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority disapproved and dismissed one specification of indecent acts and the sole specification and charge of forcible sodomy, and approved the findings of guilt for the charge and one specification of indecent acts with a child and the charge and one specification of rape of a child under 12. The convening authority approved the reduction,forfeitures, and punitive discharge as adjudged, but approved confinement for only 20 years.Docket No. 1147Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/6/20033/6/200310/5/2017
Page 17 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