UNITED STATES ARMY COURT 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 Anthony T. Febbo, Acting Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan 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; Captain Barbara A. SnowMartone, JA (reply brief). 

For Appellee: Major Amber J. Williams, JA; Major LaJohnne A. White, JA; Captain 

Daniel H. Karna, JA (on brief). 

26 June 2013 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON REMAND 

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

Per Curiam: 

A panel of officers and enlisted members, sitting as a general court-martial, 

convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of absence without leave terminated by 

apprehension, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, violation of a 

lawful general regulation, false official statement, consensual sodomy, assault 

consummated by a battery, adultery, and obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 

86, 90, 92, 107, 125, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 

886, 890, 892, 907, 925, 928, 934 (2006) [hereinafter 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 discharge, 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 credited appellant with 116 

days of pretrial confinement against the sentence to confinement. 
WILLIAMS—ARMY 20090619 

2 

On 21 December 2011, we issued a decision in this case, affirming the 

findings of guilty and the sentence. On 10 July 2012, our superior court reversed 

our decision as to Charge IV and its Specification (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 returned the record of 

trial to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to this court for further 

consideration in light of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012). 

On 30 July 2012, in light of Humphries, we set aside appellant’s convictions for 

adultery and obstructing justice, reassessed and affirmed 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 General of the Army 

for remand to this court to either dismiss Charge II and its specification and reassess 

the sentence based on the affirmed findings or order a rehearing on the affected 

charge and the sentence. 

For the sake of judicial economy, in light of the aggravated nature of the 

remaining offenses and recognition that, under the circumstances of this case, the 

sentencing landscape does not significantly change with dismissal of the consensual 

sodomy charge, we dismiss Charge 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 and its Specification is set aside and 

dismissed. The remaining findings of guilty are again affirmed. Reassessing 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 concurring opinion in Moffeit, the court affirms only so much of the sentence 

that includes a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months, forfeiture of 

all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All rights, privileges, and 

property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of the 

findings and sentence set 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: