United States v. Gines, ACM S32410

Appellant, an Airman at the Presidio of Monterey, purchased and used cocaine on two separate holiday occasions and brought leftover cocaine back to base, pleading guilty at a special court-martial to wrongful use and introduction of cocaine in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.
Military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, four months confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E‑1; convening authority deferred reduction and forfeitures until action and approved the sentence consistent with a pretrial agreement.
The convening authority took action on the case, but the record of trial was not docketed with the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals until 46 days after action—16 days beyond the 30‑day Moreno docketing standard.
Appellant sought (1) due process relief for presumptively unreasonable post‑trial delay under Moreno and Barker, and (2) Article 66(c) appellate sentence relief under Tardif/Gay for post‑trial processing delay.
Government attributed the 46‑day delay to manning shortfalls, personnel leave, a holiday, and case‑management deficiencies; the court found these explanations unpersuasive but examined prejudice and the Tardif factors.
The court held no due process violation (Appellant showed no cognizable prejudice) and, after balancing Gay/Tardif factors, declined to grant sentence relief under Article 66(c); findings and sentence affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 46‑day delay between convening authority action and docketing violated Appellant's due process right to speedy post‑trial review (Moreno/Barker analysis)	The 46‑day delay exceeded Moreno standards and presumptively unreasonable delay entitles Appellant to relief	Delay caused by staffing, leave, holiday, and case management issues; no cognizable prejudice to Appellant	No due process violation: delay triggered Moreno review but Appellant showed no prejudice and delay not so egregious as to harm public perception
Whether appellate courts should grant sentence relief under Article 66(c) for post‑trial delay (Tardif/Gay factors)	Appellant sought meaningful sentence relief under Tardif given the undocumented and unjustified delay between action and docketing	Government explanations inadequate but delay not excessive overall; no particular harm or reduction in disciplinary effect and relief would not be meaningful	No Tardif relief: after weighing Gay factors, court found no basis to reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence; affirmed findings and sentence

United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (framework for Article 66(c) relief for post‑trial delay)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (presumption and standards for unreasonable post‑trial delay and Barker analysis)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four‑factor speedy trial/delay balancing test)
United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F.) (egregious delay standard implicating public perception)
United States v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.) (non‑exhaustive factors to guide Tardif relief analysis)
United States v. Dunbar, 31 M.J. 70 (C.M.A.) (administrative delay in forwarding records is least defensible)