Case Information
*1 Before MAYBERRY, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.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:
The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er- ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
United States v. Roberson , No. ACM 39166
59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED . [1]
FOR THE COURT
KATHLEEN M. POTTER
Acting Clerk of the Court
[1] Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, we note the record of trial was docketed with this court 32 days after the convening authority took action, exceed- ing the 30-day threshold for a presumptively unreasonable post-trial delay. United States v. Moreno , 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). However, we perceive no prejudice to Appellant from the delay. Having considered the relevant factors identified in Moreno , 63 M.J. at 135, and finding no adverse impact on the public’s perception of the fairness or integrity of the military justice system, we find no violation of Appellant’s due process rights. See United States v. Toohey , 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). We have also considered whether relief for post-trial delay in the absence of a due process violation pursuant to our authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ, is appropriate, and find it is not. See United States v. Tardif , 57 M.J. 219, 225 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. Gay , 74 M.J. 736, 744 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015), aff’d , 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016). 2