United States v. Tompkins, 40619

Appellant was convicted by a military judge at a general court-martial, pursuant to a plea agreement, of two specifications of possessing child pornography, violating Article 134 of the UCMJ.
Sentencing included a dishonorable discharge, 36 months' confinement, reduction in rank to E-1, and a reprimand.
The convening authority granted Appellant’s request to have pay and allowances provided to his spouse and children and suspended the reduction in rank for a limited period, but denied deferment of reduction in rank.
On appeal, Appellant challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922 as applied to his conviction offenses.
The appellate court also considered, sua sponte, a brief post-trial delay, but found no prejudice or entitlement to relief.
The court affirmed both the findings and sentence, finding them legally and factually correct, and discovering no prejudicial error.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922 as applied	Conviction not within nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation; statute unconstitutional as applied	Statute applies; conviction aligns with current law	No relief; issue does not warrant further discussion
Post-trial Delay	Not raised by appellant	No prejudice due to minor delay in docketing	No relief warranted

United States v. Guinn, 81 M.J. 195 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (reviewing standard for appellate relief and harmless error)
United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356 (C.M.A. 1987) (errors that do not materially prejudice substantial rights do not warrant relief)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standard for addressing post-trial delay and potential prejudice)
United States v. Livak, 80 M.J. 631 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2020) (appraising facially unreasonable post-trial delays)