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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.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. Dize , No. ACM S32425
59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED . [*]
FOR THE COURT
KURT J. BRUBAKER
Clerk of the Court [*] Although Appellant raises no specific assignments of error, he notes the record of trial was docketed with this court 35 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, he avers he suffered no prejudice from the delay, and we agree. Accordingly, having considered the relevant factors identified in Moreno , 63 M.J. at 135, and finding no adverse impact on the pub- lic’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