## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before YOB, KRAUSS, and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Sergeant JAMIL V. WILLIAMS

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20090619

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood Gregory A. Gross, Military Judge
Lieutenant Colonel Anth ony T. Febbo, Acting St aff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jonath an F. Potter, JA; Captain Barbara A. Snow-Martone, JA (on brief) ; Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M. Jamison, JA; Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA; Captai n Barbara A. SnowMartone, JA (reply brief).

For Appellee: Major Amber J. Williams, JA; Major La Johnne A. White, JA; Captain Daniel H. Karna, JA (on brief).

26 June 2013

------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON REMAND

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

Per Curiam:

A panel of officers and en listed members, s itting as a genera l court-martial, convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of absence without leave terminated by apprehension, willfully disobe ying a superior commissioned officer, violation of a lawful general regulation, false official statement, consensual sodomy, assault consummated by a battery, adultery, and obs tructing justice, in violation of Articles 86, 90, 92, 107, 125, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of M ilitary Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 890, 892, 90 7, 925, 928, 934 (2 006) [hereinaft er UCMJ]. See Manual for
Courts-Martial

, United States (2012 ed.), pt. IV, ¶¶ 62.b. and 96.b. The panel sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct di scharge, confinement for nine months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and cr edited appellant with 116 days of pretrial confinement agains t the sentence to confinement.WILLIAMS—ARMY 20090619

2 On 21 December 2011, we issued a decision in th is case, affirming the findings of guilty and the sentence. On 10 July 2012, our superi or court reversed our decision as to Charge IV and its Spec ification (adultery in violation of Article 134, UCMJ), as to Additional Charge V, Specification 1 (obstructing justice in violation of Article 134, UCMJ ), and as to the sentence and return ed the record of trial to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to th is court for further consideration in light of United States v. Humphries , 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012). On 30 July 201 2, in light of Humphries , we set aside appellant’s convictions for adultery and obstructi ng justice, reassessed and affirm ed the sentence. On 13 June 2013, our superior court reversed our decision as to Charge II and its specification, and the sentence, in light of United States v. Castellano , 72 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2013), and returned the record of trial to The Judge Advocate Gene ral of the Army
for remand to this court to either dismiss Charge II and its speci fication and reassess the sentence based on the affirmed findin gs or order a rehear ing on the affected charge and the sentence.

For the sake of judicial economy, in light of the ag gravated nature of the remaining offenses a nd recognition that, u nder the circumstances of this case, the sentencing landscape does not significantly ch ange with dismissal of the consensual sodomy charge, we dismiss Ch arge II and its specification and reassess the sentence.

See United States v. Sales , 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986); United States v. Moffeit , 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006)

The finding of guilty of Charge II a nd its Specification is set aside and dismissed. The remaining fi ndings of guilty are again affirmed. Re assessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted, the entire record, and in accordance with the principles of United States v. Sales , 22 M.J. 305 (C .M.A. 1986), and United States v. Moffeit , 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006 ), to include the factors identified by Judge Baker
in his concurri ng opinion in Moffeit , the court affirms only so much of the sentence
that includes a bad- conduct discharge, co nfinement for eight m onths, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All ri ghts, privileges, and property, of which ap pellant has been depr ived by virtue of that portion of the findings and sentence se t aside by this decision, are ordered restored. See Articles 58b(c) & 75(a), UCMJ.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: