• 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 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 BULLA - 58 MJ 715Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to her pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was found guilty of the following offenses: two specifications of unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, in violation of Article 112(a), UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful appropriation of military property in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for forty-nine days, reduction to paygrade E-1, and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for two months. With respect to the adjudged sentence, the pretrial agreement allowed approval of all elements, requiring only that the convening authority suspend the BCD for a period of twelve months from the date of the convening authority’s action. Additionally, however, the pretrial agreement included a misconduct provision that permitted the convening authority, among other things, to disregard the sentence limiting part of the pretrial agreement if the Appellant committed a violation of the UCMJ between the time the sentence was announced at her court-martial and the time the convening authority acted on the sentence.Docket No. 1171Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/16/20035/16/200310/5/2017
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 ESPOSITO - 57 MJ 608UNITED STATES V ESPOSITO - 57 MJ 608 Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1169Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/28/20028/28/20029/15/2017
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 RENDON - PER CURIAM REMAND - UNPUBLISHEDOn 26 November 2002, this Court issued a decision in this case, United States v. Rendon, 57 M.J. 795 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2002), which, among other things, held that the military judge should have granted additional confinement credit under RCM 305(k) for restriction that he had ruled was tantamount to confinement. Thereafter, pursuant to Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Judge Advocate General (JAG) ordered the case sent to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to determine whether this Court erred in so ruling. On 14 May 2003, our higher court determined that it was error for us to order additional credit under RCM 305(k) for the restriction in this case. It set aside our earlier decision and returned the record for remand to this Court for further review. United States v. Rendon, 58 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2003).Docket No. 1168Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/30/20039/30/200310/5/2017
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 FELS - PER CURIAMUNITED STATES V FELS - PER CURIAM Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1165Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/23/20025/23/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V STETTEN - PER CURIAMUNITED STATES V STETTEN - PER CURIAM Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1164Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/25/20026/25/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SALERNO - PER CURIAMUNITED STATES V SALERNO - PER CURIAM Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1163Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals5/9/20025/9/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V HUMPHREYS - PER CURIAMUNITED STATES V HUMPHREYS - PER CURIAM Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1162Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/17/20026/17/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V FARENCE - 57 MJ 674UNITED STATES V FARENCE - 57 MJ 674 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1161Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/30/20029/30/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SALCIDO - PER CURIAMUNITED STATES V SALCIDO - PER CURIAM Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1160Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/5/20023/5/20028/31/2017
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
Page 25 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