Filed: Apr. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Austin T. CHANEY Aviation Electronics Technician Airman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy Appellant No. 201900021 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided: 9 April 2019. Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN. Sentence adjudged 9 November 2018 by a special court-martial con- vened at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sente
Summary: United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Austin T. CHANEY Aviation Electronics Technician Airman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy Appellant No. 201900021 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Decided: 9 April 2019. Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN. Sentence adjudged 9 November 2018 by a special court-martial con- vened at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Senten..
More
United States Navy-Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Austin T. CHANEY
Aviation Electronics Technician
Airman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy
Appellant
No. 201900021
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.
Decided: 9 April 2019.
Military Judge:
Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN.
Sentence adjudged 9 November 2018 by a special court-martial con-
vened at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington, consisting of a
military judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authori-
ty: confinement for 4 months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct dis-
charge.
For Appellant:
Captain Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USNR.
For Appellee:
Brian K. Keller, Esq.
_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
_________________________
Before HUTCHINSON, TANG, and KOVAC,
Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Chaney, No. 201900021
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 the 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