## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist EDUARDO MARQUEZ

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20150604

Headquarters, U.S. Army Combined Ar ms Center and Fort Leavenworth Marc D. Cipriano, Military Judge

Colonel John S. T. Irgens, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Colonel Craig E. Merutka, Sta ff Judge Advocate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Lieutenant Co lonel Christopher D. Carrier, JA; Major Christopher D. Coleman, JA; Captain Ryan T. Yoder, JA , Captain Cody Cheek, JA (on brief and reply brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colone l A.G. Courie, III, JA; Major Cormac M. Smith, JA; Captain Cassandra M. Resposo, JA (on brief).

22 March 2017

---------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

----------------------------------

PENLAND, Judge:

After pleading guilty to all offenses of which he was found guilty, appellant now alleges an unpreserved, non-jurisdictional error warra nts sentence relief. We disagree.

A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of one specificat ion of using disrespect ful language toward a noncommissioned officer and three spec ifications of assault consummated by battery, in violation of Ar ticles 91 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 891, 928 (2012) [her einafter UCMJ]. The conv ening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, conf inement for three months,

and reduction to th e grade of E-1.MARQUEZ—ARMY 20150604

2 We review this case unde r Article 66, UCMJ. We ha ve considered appellant’s submissions pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982); they lack merit. Appellant’s on e assigned error merits brief discussion, but no relief.

The general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) lawfully ordered appellant to active duty for hi s court-martial as a result of his misc onduct during an earlier period of active-duty training. Citing Article 2(d) , UCMJ, as coda l authority, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA)) approved the order. At trial, appellant voiced no quarrel with the ASA (M&RA)’s authority to do so. Now, and for the fi rst time, he asserts his

confinement violated Articl e 2(d)(5)(A), UCMJ, which states: “A member ordered to active duty [], unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not [] be se ntenced to confinement.” Appellant argues this Secretarial authority is non-delegable; alternatively, he argues the Se cretary of the Army did not, in fact, delegate such authority to the ASA (M&RA).

Appellant does not attack the court-martial’s jurisdic tion, which we certainly understand after considering th e components thereof and fi nding them present here.

See United Stat es v. Harmon , 63 M.J. 98, 101 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (“Genera lly, there are three prerequisites th at must be met for courts-martial jurisdiction to vest: (1) jurisdiction over the offens e, (2) personal jurisdiction over the accused, and (3) a properly convened and co mposed court-martial.”); United States v. Nealy , 71 M.J. 73, 75 (C.A.A.F. 2012); and United States v. Ali , 71 M.J. 256, 261 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (citing Rule for Courts-Martial 201(b)). By entering an unconditional guilty plea to all of the offenses that we now review, appellant waived his current complaint. See
United States v. Schweitzer , 68 M.J. 133, 136 (C .A.A.F. 2009).

Even had appellant preser ved the alleged er ror, we would re solve it against him. The Secretary of the Army’s appr oval authority under Article 2(d)(5)(A), UCMJ, is delegable. See United States v. Hennis , 75 M.J. 796, 804-05 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2016). The Secret ary indeed delegate d it in Departme nt of the Army

General Order 2012-0 1: “The ASA (M&RA) is as signed responsibility for [] exercising the human resource authorities of the SecArmy [] [a nd] [p]roviding, in

coordination with the General Counsel , policy supervis ion for Army law enforcement matters, including [] m ilitary justice matters. . . .”MARQUEZ—ARMY 20150604

3 CONCLUSION

The findings of guilty and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

Senior Judge CAMPANELLA an d Judge HERRING concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: