Filed: Feb. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. James P. McGRATH Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201800279 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Decided: 14 February 2019. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Emily A. Jackson-Hall, USMC. Sentence adjudged 17 July 2018 by a special court-martial convened at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authori
Summary: United States Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. James P. McGRATH Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 201800279 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Decided: 14 February 2019. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Emily A. Jackson-Hall, USMC. Sentence adjudged 17 July 2018 by a special court-martial convened at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authorit..
More
United States Navy–Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
James P. McGRATH
Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps
Appellant
No. 201800279
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Decided: 14 February 2019.
Military Judge:
Lieutenant Colonel Emily A. Jackson-Hall, USMC.
Sentence adjudged 17 July 2018 by a special court-martial convened
at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge
sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction to
E-3, confinement for 67 days, and a bad-conduct discharge.
For Appellant:
Commander Richard E.N. Federico, JAGC, USN.
For Appellee:
Brian K. Keller, Esq.
_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
_________________________
Before WOODARD, HUTCHISON, and FOIL,
Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. McGrath, No. 201800279
PER CURIAM:
After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are cor-
rect in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s
substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
RODGER A. DREW, JR.
Clerk of Court
2