Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Aranda, 201600296 (2016)

Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Number: 201600296 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS _ No. 201600296 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. JEREMIAS ARANDA Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant _ Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Colonel James K. Carberry, USMC. For Appellant: Major Lee C. Kindlon, USMCR. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq. _ Decided 1 November 2016 _ Before MARKS, GLASER-ALLEN, and GROHARING, Appellate Military Judges _ After careful considerati
More
         U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS
                         _________________________

                             No. 201600296
                         _________________________

                 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Appellee
                                     v.
                        JEREMIAS ARANDA
                    Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps
                               Appellant
                        _________________________
 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

         Military Judge: Colonel James K. Carberry, USMC.
           For Appellant: Major Lee C. Kindlon, USMCR.
                 For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.
                      _________________________

                        Decided 1 November 2016
                         _________________________

   Before MARKS, GLASER-ALLEN, and GROHARING, Appellate Military
                              Judges
                     _________________________

   After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening
authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).
The supplemental court-martial order will reflect that DNA processing was
not required by 10 U.S.C. § 1565 since the offense of which the appellant was
convicted did not authorize more than one year of confinement.


                               For the Court



                               R.H. TROIDL
                               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