CreatorTitleDescriptionPublication NumberOrganizationPublication DateEffective DateExpiration DateUploaded On
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V WESTVEER - 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 two specifications of failure to obey a general order and two specifications of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; and one specification of attempting to receive child pornography, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for twelve months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. However, the Promulgating Order erroneously states that the sentence included forfeiture of all pay and allowances. We will order a correction.Docket No. 1305Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/27/200910/27/200910/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V ARNOLD - 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 two specifications of violating 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) by producing child pornography and one specification of wrongfully and knowingly possessing child pornography, all in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for seventy-eight months, and reduction to E-1. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged but suspended all confinement in excess of forty-eight months for twelve months from the date of the Convening Authority’s action, pursuant to the terms of the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1257Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/19/20079/19/200710/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V POINTEK 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 convicted of two specifications of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully using a government computer for other than authorized purposes and one specification of violating a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing drug paraphernalia, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of wrongfully and knowingly transporting child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), one specification of wrongfully and knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), and one specification of wrongfully providing alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of twenty-one, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge and confinement for twenty-five months. The Convening Authority changed the dishonorable discharge to a bad-conduct discharge and approved the adjudged sentence as changed. He also suspended confinement in excess of fifteen months for the period of confinement plus twelve months from the date of Appellant’s release from confinement, as required by the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1229Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/3/20056/3/200510/24/2017
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 ONTIVEROS - 59 MJ 639Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was found guilty of one specification of conspiracy to steal and wrongfully dispose of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful disposition of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ; and one specification of larceny of military property of the United States of a value greater than $100, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for six months, and reduction to E-3. The Convening Authority approved the adjudged sentence, which was within the sentence limits of the pretrial agreement.Docket No. 1178Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/25/200311/25/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V LEE - 61 MJ 627Appellant was tried by general court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of two specifications of attempted wrongful possession of 20 tablets of Hydrocodone, a Schedule III controlled substance, one specification of attempted wrongful possession of 17 tablets of paracetamol, a Schedule III controlled substance, one specification of attempted wrongful possession of 72 tablets of nurofen, a Schedule III controlled substance, one specification of wrongful introduction of 3.637 grams of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, onto an installation under the control of the armed forces with intent to distribute, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); four specifications of wrongful distribution of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, one specification of wrongful manufacturing of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, one specification of wrongful possession of alprozalam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, and one specification of wrongful introduction of psilocybin mushrooms, a Schedule I controlled substance, onto an installation under the control of the armed forces with the intent to distribute, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; two specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121; and two specifications of forgery, in violation of Article 123, UCMJ.Docket No. 1200Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals6/1/20056/1/200510/24/2017
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 SHULTZ (2023 WL 6140828)Appellant was tried by special court-martial composed of 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 statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of extramarital sexual conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-3 and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority suspended reduction in grade beyond reduction to E-5. Thereafter, judgment was entered. This specification is intended to allege what was formerly called adultery, that is, sexual intercourse between two persons, at least one of whom is married to someone else. However, it does not allege that either person was married. It is therefore an inadequate specification. United States v. King, 34 M.J. 95, 97 (C.M.A. 1992). Only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to E-5 and a bad-conduct discharge is affirmed. We determine that the findings and sentence, as modified, 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 modified, are affirmed.Docket No. 1486Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/20/20239/20/20239/20/2023
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MILLER - 61 MJ 827Appellant was tried by special court-martial military judge alone on 21 November 2003. After conviction of various drug offenses pursuant to pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was sentenced by the judge to a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-1, which the Convening Authority approved on 18 June 2004.DOCKET NO. 005-69-01Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/19/200510/19/200510/24/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V FREEMAN - PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, judge alone. Pursuant to his guilty pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of conspiracy with Coast Guard Fireman Apprentice James R. Frye to commit larceny of $600 from a Coast Guard shipmate, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of larceny of a shipmate's Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card, and two specifications of larceny of $100 from that shipmate, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for four months, and a fine of $300. The convening authority approved the BCD, the fine of $300, and a reduced period of confinement of 75 days, which was within the terms of the pretrial agreement. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned three errors, all of which are rejected as described below.Docket No. 1174Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/20/20033/20/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V FRYE - PER CURIAMAppellant was tried by special court-martial, judge alone. Pursuant to his guilty pleas, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of the following offenses: one specification of conspiracy with Coast Guard Seaman Recruit Aaron M. Freeman to commit larceny of $600 from a Coast Guard shipmate, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of wrongful appropriation of a shipmate's Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card, and one specification of larceny of $400 from that shipmate, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for 100 days, and a fine of $200. The convening authority approved the BCD, the fine of $200, and a reduced period of confinement of 75 days, which was within the terms of the pretrial agreement. Before this Court, Appellant has assigned two errors both of which are rejected as described below.Docket No. 1173Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/20/20033/20/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES v. LEAL 76 M.J.862Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for thirty days, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.Docket No. 1445Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals10/19/201710/19/201710/19/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V MEEK - 58 MJ 579Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. He was charged with one specification of desertion in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of missing movement by design in violation of Article 87, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful use of marijuana in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Appellant pled not guilty to desertion, and entered pleas of guilty to the lesser included offense of unauthorized absence terminated by apprehension in violation of Article 86, UCMJ and to the charges and specifications of missing movement by design and illegal drug use. According to a stipulation of fact and the Care1 inquiry during the trial, Appellant failed to return to USCGC BOUTWELL after a period of authorized leave, and remained absent from 18 February 2001 until 24 March 2001, when he was apprehended in Arkansas by local authorities. While absent, he missed USCGC BOUTWELL’s scheduled movement from Golfito, Costa Rica to Alameda, California and used marijuana. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, and sentenced Appellant to 75 days confinement, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. The military judge, with concurrence of both the trial counsel and trial defense counsel, determined that Appellant was entitled to credit for 53 days of pretrial confinement under United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984). The convening authority disapproved the findings of guilt to the charge and specification of unauthorized absence, approved the remaining findings, and approved the sentence as adjudged, but suspended all confinement in excess of 60 days for a period of 12 months as provided under the pre-trial agreement.Docket No. 1176Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals3/27/20033/27/200310/5/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V VERDECIA - UNPUBLISHEDAppellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. In accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of dereliction of duty by failing to provide an unadulterated urine sample, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ; and one specification of wrongful solicitation of another to make a false official statement concerning the other’s knowledge of Appellant’s marijuana use, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Certain findings of guilty were entered, as will be discussed. The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for thirty days and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged. The pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence.Docket No. 1311Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals11/24/200911/24/200910/30/2017
Coast Guard Court of Criminal AppealsUNITED STATES V SUKSDORF - 59 MJ 544Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, Appellant entered pleas of guilty to one specification of attempted introduction of marijuana onto a military installation in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one specification of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, two specifications of possession of marijuana, one specification of use of cocaine and marijuana, one specification of use of marijuana, and one specification of introducing marijuana onto a military installation in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; and five specifications of forgery in violation of Article 123, UCMJ. The military judge accepted Appellant’s pleas, entered findings of guilty to those offenses, and sentenced Appellant to confinement for 280 days, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. Appellant pled not guilty to one specification of distribution of marijuana, one specification of use of marijuana, and to a charge and specification of larceny of six checks. The military judge entered findings of not guilty to those specifications after the Government did not present any evidence of those offenses. The pre-trial agreement allowed the Convening Authority to approve the sentence as adjudged, but required suspension of confinement in excess of 150 days.3 Appellant also received 41 days of Allen credit for pre-trial confinement. United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984).Docket No. 1182Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals9/3/20039/3/200310/5/2017
Page 8 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