UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

CAMPANELLA, HERRING and WOLFE 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private First Class KARINA FLORES-SANTOS 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20140066 

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood 

Wade N. Faulkner, Military Judge (trial) 

Jacob D. Bayshore, Military Judge (DuBay) 

Colonel Richard W. Rousseau, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) 

Colonel Ian G. Corey, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) 

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph M. Fairfield, Acting Staff Judge Advocate (DuBay) 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Charles Lozano, JA; Major Andres Vazquez, Jr., 

JA; Major Daniel E. Goldman, JA (on brief); Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA; Major 

Andres Vazquez, Jr, JA; Major Daniel E. Goldman, JA (on motion for 

reconsideration and suggestion for reconsideration en banc). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel A.G. Courie, III, 

JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain Christopher A. Clausen, JA (on brief). 

24 April 2017 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FURTHER REVIEW 

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

CAMPANELLA, Senior Judge: 

A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted 

appellant, consistent with her pleas, of attempted distribution of a controlled 

substance, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, introduction of marijuana, 

distribution of a controlled substance, and wrongful use of cocaine in violation of 

Articles 80, 81, and 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 

881, 912a (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the 

adjudged sentenced of a bad-conduct discharge, ten months confinement, and 

reduction to the grade of E-1. 
FLORES-SANTOS—ARMY 20140066 

2 

On 8 June 2016 this court summarily affirmed the findings and sentence in 

this case. United States v. Flores-Santos, ARMY 20140066 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 8 

Jun. 2016) (summ. disp.). On 7 July 2016 appellant filed a motion for 

reconsideration and a suggestion for reconsideration by the court en banc. We 

granted the motion for reconsideration and again affirmed the findings and sentence. 

United States v. Flores-Santos, ARMY 20140066 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 29 Jul. 

2016) (mem. op.). 

Our superior court set aside our decision and remanded appellant’s case for a 

hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967), 

to make findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the matter underlying the 

granted issue, which was: 

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE WAS 

DISQUALIFIED FROM PRESIDING IN APPELLANT’S 

CASE WHERE HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS CHIEF 

OF JUSTICE AND SUPERVISED ALL PROSECUTIONS 

FOR APPELLANT’S UNIT, AND HE FAILED TO 

DISCLOSE THE FULL EXTENT OF HIS 

RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIONS FROM HIS PRIOR 

POSITION, INCLUDING CONSULTING ON CASES AT 

THE PRE-PREFERRAL AND INVESTIGATION STAGE. 

United States v. Flores-Santos, 76 M.J. 42 (C.A.A.F. 2016). 

 The DuBay hearing was conducted on 6 March 2017 and the military judge 

made findings of fact and conclusions of law in his Ruling on DuBay Issue 

Regarding Military Judge’s Qualification. (App. Ex. XIII). We hereby adopt his 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree that Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) 

(Ret.) Faulkner: 

[W]as not disqualified under [Rule for Courts-Martial 

(hereinafter RCM)] 902(b) as he was not “counsel” in this 

case, and that even though Appellant waived any issues 

regarding [R.C.M.] 902(a) disqualification, when 

considering the trial as a whole, a reasonable person 

would not question the partiality of LTC (Ret.) Faulkner. 

Even if this Court were to presume that [R.C.M.] 902(a) 

was violated and that Appellant did not waive that issue, 

this Court finds no material prejudice to Appellant or 

other facts that necessitate a re-hearing to ensure the 

public retains confidence in the military justice system. 
FLORES-SANTOS—ARMY 20140066 

3 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated previously, the findings of guilty and the sentence are 

AFFIRMED. 

 Judge HERRING and Judge WOLFE concur. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: