UNITED STATES ARMY COURT 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, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) 

Lieutenant Colonel James A. Bagwell, Staff Judge Advocate (recommendation) 

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Vincent 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. Brantley, 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, disobedience of a noncommissioned officer (two 

specifications), false official statement, wrongful use of marijuana, larceny (three 

specifications), housebreaking (two specifications), and bigamy in violation of 

Articles 86, 90, 91, 107, 112a, 121, 130, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

[hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 890, 891, 907, 912a, 930, 934 (2006). The 

military judge convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of 

larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced appellant 

to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for eighteen months. In accordance 

with a pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved only so much of the 

sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge and fifteen months of confinement. 
WILLIAMS — ARMY 20130284 

2

The convening authority also credited appellant with 123 days against the sentence 

to confinement. 

On 28 August 2014, this court affirmed the findings 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) reversed this court’s decision as to 

Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge VI (larceny of money using stolen debit card 

numbers to obtain goods and services) and as to the 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 2016). The CAAF returned the 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 determine what sentence would 

have been imposed at the trial level of the error had not occurred, “we need not 

order a rehearing on the sentence.” United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305, 307 (C.M.A. 

1986). Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted, the entire 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 confident appellant would have 

received a sentence at least as severe as the 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: