This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. 

Before 

GASTON, STEWART, and HOUTZ 

Appellate Military Judges 

_________________________ 

UNITED STATES 

Appellee 

v. 

Calvin N. PULLARA 

Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps 

Appellant 

No. 201900291 

Decided: 29 December 2020 

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Wilbur Lee 

Sentence adjudged 7 August 2019 by a general court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, composed of a military 

judge alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for 

twelve months and one day, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable 

discharge. 

For Appellant:

Lieutenant Commander Jacqueline M. Leonard, JAGC, USN 

For Appellee: 

Lieutenant Kevin G. Edwards II, JAGC, USN 

Lieutenant Kimberly Rios, JAGC, USN 

_________________________ 
United States v. Pullara, NMCCA No. 201900291 

Opinion of the Court 

2 

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but 

may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2. 

_________________________ 

PER CURIAM: 

Appellant was found guilty, in accordance with his pleas, of attempting to 

wrongfully possess a controlled substance and wrongfully distributing, using, 

and possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 

Articles 80 and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 880, 912a. 

Appellant raises one assignment of error: that Appellant’s sentence to a 

dishonorable discharge is inappropriately severe and disparate compared to 

other similar misconduct. We find no error and affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant’s convictions arise out of a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation into the wrongful use and distribution of lysergic acid 

diethylamide (LSD) onboard Marine Corps Base Hawaii. After enlisting in 

the Marine Corps in July 2013, Appellant worked as an aviation electronics 

technician until he was placed into pretrial confinement in connection with 

his offenses in May 2019. The evidence at his court-martial showed that 

Appellant used LSD on approximately twenty occasions between September 

2018 and March 2019. During that time he purchased ninety tabs of LSD on 

the internet and had them delivered via United States mail to his on-base 

residence. He sold or gave LSD on four occasions to other Marines, some of 

whom also worked in aircraft maintenance, knowing that the drug causes 

hallucinations and confusion. He also ordered thirty pills and two vials of 

anabolic steroids, which were seized by law enforcement upon their delivery 

to Appellant’s on-base residence. At the time of his apprehension, Appellant 

still possessed approximately thirty tabs of LSD in his on-base residence, 

which he intended to use and distribute to other Marines, including at a 

scheduled training exercise in Arizona. 

II. DISCUSSION

“Sentence appropriateness involves the judicial function of assuring that 

justice is done and that the accused gets the punishment he deserves.” United 

States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 395 (C.M.A. 1988). This requires our “individual-
United States v. Pullara, NMCCA No. 201900291 

Opinion of the Court 

3 

ized consideration of the particular accused on the basis of the nature and 

seriousness of the offense and the character of the offender.” United States v. 

Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 1982) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). In making this assessment, we analyze the record as a 

whole. Healy, 26 M.J. at 395-97. Despite our significant discretion in determining sentence appropriateness, we may not engage in acts of clemency. 

United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010). 

The appropriateness of a sentence generally should be determined without reference or comparison to sentences in other cases.” United States v. 

Ballard, 20 M.J. 282, 283 (C.M.A. 1985). A Court of Criminal Appeals is 

“required to engage in sentence comparison only ‘in those rare instances in 

which sentence appropriateness can be fairly determined only by reference to 

disparate sentences adjudged in closely related cases.’ ” United States v. 

Sothen, 54 M.J. 294, 296 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (quoting Ballard, 20 M.J. at 283). 

Where closely related cases involve disparate sentences, courts must consider 

whether there is a rational basis for the differences between the sentences. 

United States v. Durant, 55 M.J. 258, 260 (C.A.A.F. 2001). 

In this case we find that the sentence is appropriate. Appellant signed a 

pretrial agreement and agreed to a stipulation of fact that detailed his 

months-long period of misconduct. He pled guilty to possessing and distributing LSD on a Marine Corps installation and was planning to distribute 

more LSD in his possession to additional Marines. At sentencing the Government entered six exhibits into evidence, including the transcript of Appellant’s interrogation by law enforcement wherein he admitted using cryptocurrency to purchase drugs under a false name and a plan to sell the drugs 

that gave him a “500 percent profit margin.”1 He also admitted that he 

intended to take the LSD to a training course in Yuma, Arizona. During this 

entire time the evidence showed he was qualified in aircraft quality control 

and performed maintenance on aircraft, as did some of the other Marines to 

whom he distributed the drug. Appellant’s sentencing case included photographs of his family, his awards, and his muster sheet showing he complied 

with the terms of his restriction. Appellant’s wife testified that he was a good 

father and husband, suffered from depression, and expressed remorse for his 

actions to her. Appellant provided the court with an unsworn statement in 

which he discussed his difficult childhood and substance abuse issues as an 

adolescent, and apologized to his family and his command. 

 

1 Pros. Ex. 2 at 48. 
United States v. Pullara, NMCCA No. 201900291 

Opinion of the Court 

4 

Based on this evidence, and giving individualized consideration to Appellant as well as the nature and seriousness of the offenses, we find that the 

sentence in this case serves the interests of justice and Appellant received the 

punishment he deserves. Further, after reviewing the cases cited by Appellant in his brief, we are not convinced the other cases are closely related to 

Appellant’s, and we will not engage in a sentence disparity analysis. In a 

recent decision, this Court rejected a sentence disparity argument where the 

appellant compared his aggravated assault case to four other cases that had 

different factual circumstances, different victims, and no “co-actors” or 

“common scheme.” United States v. Pena, No. 201700327, 2018 CCA LEXIS 

279, at *5 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. June 5, 2018) (unpublished). While in this 

case, as in Pena, the offenses are similar, there is no nexus between Appellant’s case and the cited cases. Therefore, no sentence comparison is warranted. 

III. CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel, 

we have determined that the approved findings and the sentence are correct 

in law and fact and that there is no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s 

substantial rights. UCMJ arts. 59, 66. Accordingly, the findings and the 

sentence in the Entry of Judgment are AFFIRMED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

RODGER A. DREW, JR. 

Clerk of Court