## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before MULLIGAN, HERRING, and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist HENRY L. WILLIAMS III United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20130284

Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg Tara A. Osborn, Military Judge (arraignment)

David H. Robertson, Military Judge (trial) Colonel Paul S. Wilson, Sta ff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Lieutenant Colonel James A. Bagwell, Staff Judge Advocate (recommendation)

For Appellant: Colo nel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Vi ncent T. Shuler, JA; Captain
Michael J. Millios , JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA ; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; Major Catherine L. Brantle y, JA; Captain Rachel T. Brant, JA (on brief).

14 March 2016

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

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

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of failure to go to his appointed place of duty, disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, disobe dience of a noncommissioned officer (two specifications), false official statement, wrongful use of marijuana, larceny (three specifications), houseb reaking (two specifications), and bigamy in violation of Articles 86, 90, 91, 1 07, 112a, 121, 130, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S. C. §§ 886, 890, 8 91, 907, 912a, 930, 934 (2006). The military judge convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of larceny in violation of Ar ticle 121, UCMJ. The military judge senten ced appellant
to a bad-conduct di scharge and confinem ent for eighteen months. In accordance with a pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved on ly so much of the sentence as provided for a ba d-conduct discharge and fiftee n months of confinement.WILLIAMS — ARMY 20130284

2 The convening authority also credited appe llant with 123 days against the sentence
to confinement.

On 28 August 2014, this court affirmed the find ings of guilty and the

sentence. United States v. Williams , ARMY 20130284, 2014 CCA LEXIS (C.A.A.F. 28 August 2014) (mem. op.) . On 23 February 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) reve rsed this court’s decision as to Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge VI (larceny of mone y using stolen debit card numbers to obtain go ods and services) and as to th e sentence but affirmed the decision in all other aspects. United States v. Williams, 75 M.J. __, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 122 (C.A.A.F. 23 Feb 20 16). The CAAF returned th e record of trial to The Judge Advocate General for remand to this court for a sentence reassessment or an order for a sentence rehearing.

Because we conclude that we can “reliably determ ine what sentence would have been imposed at the tr ial level of the er ror had not occurr ed, “we need not order a rehearing on the sentence.” United States v. Sales , 22 M.J. 30 5, 307 (C.M.A. 1986). Reassessin g the sentence on the basis of the error no ted, the entir e record, and applying the principles of Sales , 22 M.J. at 308, and United States v.
Winckelmann , 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013), we are confiden t appellant would have
received a sentence at leas t as severe as th e approved sentence of a bad-conduct discharge and fifteen months confinement. The approved sentence is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: