Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Megeed, 201800153 (2018)

Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Number: 201800153 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _ No. 201800153 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. Ahmed A. MEGEED Seaman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy Appellant _ Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Commander Hayes C. Larsen, JAGC, USN. For Appellant: Major David A. Peters, USMCR. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq. _ Decided 31 October 2018 _ Before HUTCHISON, LAWRENCE, and ELLINGTON, Appellate Military Judges _ After careful con
More
         U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS
                        _________________________

                            No. 201800153
                        _________________________

                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                            Appellee
                                    v.

                       Ahmed A. MEGEED
                 Seaman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy
                             Appellant
                      _________________________

 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

        Military Judge: Commander Hayes C. Larsen, JAGC, USN.

              For Appellant: Major David A. Peters, USMCR.
                    For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.
                        _________________________

                        Decided 31 October 2018
                        _________________________

             Before HUTCHISON, LAWRENCE, and ELLINGTON,
                     Appellate Military Judges
                      _________________________

       After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assign-
ment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the con-
vening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §
866(c). The supplemental court-martial order shall reflect that the govern-
ment withdrew Specifications 7 and 11 of Charge III and dismissed them
without prejudice, to ripen into prejudice upon completion of appellate
review; thus the appellant was not found Not Guilty of those specifications.
Record at 109.
                                  FOR THE COURT




                                  RODGER A. DREW, JR.
                                  Clerk of Court

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer