Case Information
*1 Before DREW, JOHNSON, and MINK, Appellate Military Judges.
________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
________________________
PER CURIAM:
We have this case for further review because the staff judge advocate orig- inally erred in advising the convening authority that he could not disapprove the confinement portion of Appellant’s sentence, in whole or in part. See United States v. Mickens, No. ACM S32396, 2017 CCA LEXIS 336 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 18 May 2017) (unpub. op.). Having resolved that issue, we find the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prej- udicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), Uni- form Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).
United States v. Mickens , No. ACM S32396 (f rev) Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED .
FOR THE COURT
KURT J. BRUBAKER
Clerk of the Court
2