| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. SHAFRAN (2023 WL 6534065) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact and one specification of providing alcohol to a minor in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.
Appellant raises eight assignments of error (AOEs), paraphrased and renumbered as follows: There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for abusive sexual contact;
II. The Article 134 specification (providing alcohol to a person under the age of 21) is fatally defective because it does not allege a crime or words of criminality;
III. The military judge erred by instructing the members that Appellant was charged with providing alcohol to a minor when the relevant charge neither alleged Ms. E.F. was a minor nor cited any standard under which Ms. E.F. could be considered a minor;
IV. There is legally and factually insufficient evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction for providing alcohol to a person under 21 years of age;
V. Ms. E.F.’s unsworn statement discussing the impact of conduct for which Appellant was acquitted violated Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1001(c);2
VI. The convening authority erred by failing to provide reasons for his denial of Appellant’s deferment request;
VII. Dr. A.H. exceeded the scope of his approved expertise by providing improper and speculative psychological interpretation of Ms. E.F.’s conduct and gave the equivalent of “human lie detector” testimony; and
VIII. Appellant was deprived of his right to a unanimous verdict. | Docket No. 1480 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/6/2023 | 10/6/2023 | | 4/10/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V SHAFRAN RECONSIDERATION EN BANC (84 M.J. 548) | On 6 October 2023, we issued an en banc opinion affirming the findings and sentence. Appellant timely filed a motion urging us to reconsider our opinion without the participation of Judges Tasikas and Parker, whom he asserted were disqualified. After careful consideration of the motion, Judge Tasikas decided to recuse himself not due to any actual conflict, but to avoid even the appearance of conflict based on the particular circumstances of the case. Judge Parker declined to recuse herself, finding no basis to do so. We then granted the motion for reconsideration as well as Appellant’s motion to raise an additional assignment of error (AOE) in light of United States v. Jeter, 84 M.J. 68 (C.A.A.F. 2023). Having reconsidered the case and the additional AOE without Judge Tasikas’s participation, we again affirm the findings and sentence.
A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact and one specification of providing alcohol to a minor, in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The members sentenced Appellant to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.
DECISION
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed. | Docket No. 1480 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/26/2024 | 2/26/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V NENNI (2024 WL 4454934) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $1,278 per month for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises two assignments of error: (1) His due process right to timely appellate review was violated; and (2) The convening authorities violated his equal protection right when they solicited, received, and presumptively considered panel members’ race and gender in selecting who would serve on appellant’s court-martial.
We conclude there is no prejudicial error and affirm.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact 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. 1494 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/10/2024 | 10/10/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V MIERES (84 M.J. 682) CORRECTED | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of failure to obey a lawful order and one specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 92 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-3, restriction for 15 days, and a letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact 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. 1491 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/10/2024 | 6/10/2024 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V KELLEY (2025 WL 1198116) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of possessing child pornography in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for twelve months, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
We heard oral argument on AOEs I and V. Lumping the issues together, we first consider AOEs related to whether Appellant was acquitted (I, II, and part of VI), then those related to whether he was convicted of an offense for which he was not charged (III, IV, V, and the other part of VI), and finally sufficiency of the evidence (VII). We conclude there was no error and affirm.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact 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. 1495 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 4/25/2025 | 4/25/2025 | | 5/19/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES v REIMONENQ (25 WL 1702021) | This is a Government appeal under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellee is charged with attempted murder, two specifications of carrying a concealed weapon, and one specification of dereliction of duty. Appellee filed a motion to suppress statements he made to shipmates and separately to Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) agents. The military judge granted in part and denied in part the suppression motion. The Government gave timely notice and filed this appeal.
The Government asserts:
I. The military judge abused his discretion when he found Appellee did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Article 31(b) rights; and
II. The military judge misapplied the law when he found the Appellee in custody, thereby triggering the Appellee’s Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, if the Appellee was in custody, the military judge abused his discretion when determining the Appellee did not
knowingly and intelligently waive his Fifth Amendment rights. | Docket No. 1509 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 6/18/2025 | 6/18/2025 | | 6/23/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. RAY (-- MJ ---) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of violating a general order in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-2, 60 days of hard labor, and 60 days of restriction. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises two assignments of error:
I. The specification of which Appellant was convicted fails to state an offense because it fails to allege specific conduct prohibited by the order; and
II. The military judge abused his discretion by improperly allowing an unsworn statement to be presented by the accuser during sentencing.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact 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. 1498 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/9/2025 | 7/9/2025 | | 7/14/2025 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. DUCKER (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of domestic violence,
one specification of child endangerment, and one specification of knowingly and wrongfully possessing a firearm in and affecting commerce, in violation of Articles 128b, 119b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for 180 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact 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. 1508 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/22/2025 | 7/22/2025 | | 7/23/2025 |