CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BERNARD 71 MJ 685UNITED STATES V BERNARD 71 MJ 685 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1328Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/2/201211/2/20129/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BENTLEY 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 one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and seven specifications of larceny of military property of the United States Coast Guard, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months, and reduction to E-2. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence.Docket No. 1234Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals7/8/20057/8/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BENNETT 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: two specifications of wrongfully using marijuana, two specifications of wrongfully using cocaine, and one specification of wrongfully distributing cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 150 days, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended confinement in excess of ninety days for twelve months. The pretrial agreement had no effect on the sentence.Docket No. 1238Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/17/20058/17/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BENEDICT - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V BENEDICT - UNPUBLISHED - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeal DecisionDocket No. 1083Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/21/20004/21/20008/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BENEDICT - 59 MJ 563UNITED STATES V BENEDICT - 59 MJ 563 Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1083Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/16/20028/16/20029/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BEGIN - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V BEGIN - UNPUBLISHED - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1150Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/29/20018/29/20018/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BEFFORD - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V BEFFORD - UNPUBLISHED - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1144Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/23/20014/23/20018/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BECKERMAN - 48 MJ 898UNITED STATES V BECKERMAN - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 954Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/18/19973/18/19978/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BEALE - 54 MJ 651UNITED STATES V BEALE - 54 MJ 651 - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1136Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/11/200012/11/20008/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BAYLE - 56 MJ 762UNITED STATES V BAYLE - 56 MJ 762 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1152Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/21/20022/21/20028/31/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BARKER - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V BARKER - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1340Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 11/17/201111/17/20119/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BANKS - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V BANKS - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1411Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals7/1/20167/1/20169/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BALL - 45 MJ 620UNITED STATES V BALL - Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals DecisionDocket No. 1049Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/29/19971/29/19978/25/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BAKER - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V BAKER - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1419Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/12/20169/12/20169/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V BAILEY (UNPUBLISHED)Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of three specifications of sexual assault and one specification of abusive sexual contact, all in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for eighteen months, reduction to E-1, a dishonorable discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. This is our second review of this case. In our first review, we affirmed the findings and the sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) granted a petition for review and affirmed our decision as to findings but reversed as to sentence. United States v. Bailey, 71 M.J. 11, 16 (C.A.A.F. 2017). CAAF noted that although we had affirmed the sentence as approved—which included forfeiture of all pay and allowances—we failed to reference the forfeitures when reciting the sentence in our opening paragraph. CAAF concluded that our opinion was thus ambiguous and ordered the record remanded for clarification. Id. at 15–16. Our omission of reference to forfeiture of pay and allowances was a scrivener's error. We now clarify by affirming the entire approved sentence, including forfeiture of all pay and allowances.Docket No. 1428Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/5/20182/5/20182/6/2018
Page 29 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