CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V WHITAKER - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V WHITAKER - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1366Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals12/12/201212/12/20129/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V WAITE (MERITS)UNITED STATES V WAITE (MERITS) Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1367Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/16/201211/16/20129/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V TUCKER 82 M.J. 553A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant of violating a lawful general order, making a false official statement, and committing an unenumerated, general disorder involving death of another in violation of Articles 92, 107, and 134, UCMJ. Also consistent with his pleas, the military judge found Appellant not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide under Articles 119 and 134, UCMJ. The military judge, however, found Appellant guilty of involuntary manslaughter’s lesser-included offense of assault consummated by a battery under Article 128, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, a bad-conduct discharge, and confinement for fourteen months. Judgment was entered accordingly.Docket No. 1472Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/7/20224/7/20224/8/2022
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SIMMONS - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V SIMMONS - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1396Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 9/30/20159/30/20159/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUnited States V SHANNON 72 M.J. 569United States V SHANNON 72 M.J. 569 Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1358Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/12/20134/12/20139/18/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SAPP (2023 WL 5440570)Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of officers. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer by providing false information on an application for a concealed handgun permit, in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to forfeiture of $3,920 per month for three months, 60 days restriction, and a punitive letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned the following errors: I. The evidence is legally insufficient to prove that Appellant knowingly provided false information when his incomplete concealed handgun permit application was improperly filed by the Arlington County Circuit Court before he had signed it or attested that the information in the application was correct and complete under the penalty of perjury. 2 II. The military judge abused his discretion when he permitted Ms. JB to provide an unsworn victim impact statement during presentencing proceedings in violation of R.C.M. 1001(c) when she was not the victim of an offense of which appellant was found guilty. We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed.Docket No. 001-69-23Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals8/23/20238/23/20238/23/2023
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SAPP - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant 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 attempted larceny, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of conspiring to commit larceny, in violation of Article 81, UCMJ; one specification of unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; one specification of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; one specification of housebreaking, in violation of Article 130, UCMJ; and one specification of obstruction of justice, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for ninety days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence, and suspended for six months the bad-conduct discharge, reduction below E-2, and confinement in excess of fifty days, pursuant to the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1318Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/7/20106/7/201010/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SANCHEZ - 69 MJ 679Appellant 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 false official statements, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of wrongful disposition of military property, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ; and two specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for eight months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and suspended confinement in excess of sixty days in accordance with the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1320Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/19/201011/19/201010/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V ROY - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V ROY - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsDocket No. 1421Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/12/201610/12/20169/1/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V PARISH - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V PARISH - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals OpinionDocket No. 1396Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 11/16/201511/16/20159/15/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V NETZEL - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant 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 possession of child pornography, and one specification of violating 18 U.S.C. 1470 by attempting to transfer obscene material in interstate commerce to a minor, both in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for fifteen months, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence.Docket No. 1327Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/9/20106/9/201010/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MITCHELL - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant 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 making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and two specifications of having sexual intercourse with a child of less than 16 years of age, one specification of abusive sexual contact with a child of less than 16 years of age, and one specification of indecent liberties with a child of less than 16 years of age, all in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for fifteen months, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence except for confinement in excess of twelve months, pursuant to the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1323Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals4/23/20104/23/201010/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MCCLARY - 68 MJ 606Appellant was tried by special court-martial composed of members. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of one specification of conspiracy to make a false official statement, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and six specifications of signing false official records and two specifications of making false official statements, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was also convicted of two specifications of assault and battery, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The panel sentenced Appellant to confinement for four months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1312Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals1/19/20101/19/201010/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MARTINEZ - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant 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 attempted larceny, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of conspiring to commit larceny, in violation of Article 81, UCMJ; two specifications of failing to go to appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; one specification of failing to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; one specification of wrongful appropriation, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; and one specification each of receiving stolen property and public drunkenness, both in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for seventy-five days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and suspended confinement in excess of fifty days for six months, pursuant to the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1321Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals2/25/20102/25/201010/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MARTIN K - UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES V MARTIN K - UNPUBLISHED Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals - OpinionDocket No. 1335Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 3/4/20113/4/20119/18/2017
Page 31 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