## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM 404 63

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Troy R

. DILLON Major ( O

- 4 )
, U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 2 August 20 2 4

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge s : Thomas A. Smith (pretrial proceedings) ; Jennifer E. Powell (pretrial motion ) ; Matthew P . Stoffel (pretrial motions); Christopher D

. James

. S entence : Sentence adjudged 6 October 202 2 by GC M convened at Misawa Air Base, Japan

. Sentence entered by military judge on 2 December 202 2 : D i smissal, confinement for 4 6 months
, and forfeiture of all pay and allowance s. For Appellant : Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Captain Trevor N

. Ward
, USAF

. For Appellee : Colonel Matthew D. Talcott , USAF; Lieutenant Colonel J. Pete r Ferrell, USAF; First Lieutenant Deyana F. Unis, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before RICHARDSON
, MASON , and KEARLEY
, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30 .4.

_______ _______ __________United States v. Dillon , No. ACM 4046 3

2 PER CURIAM : A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted Appellant, in accordance with h is pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of two specification s of sexual abuse of a child and one specification of indecent visual recording in violation of Article s 1 20b and 120c
, Uniform of Code Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § § 9 20 b, 920c

. 1 T he military judge sentenced Appellant to

a dismissal
, confinement for 4 6 months
, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The convening authority took no action on the findings

. Per the recommendation of the military judge, echoed in Appellant’s clemency request, the convening authority suspended the first six months of the adjudged forfeitures and waived the resulting automatic forfeitures for six months for the benefit of Appellant’s wife and child. The convening authority took no action on the remainder of Appellant’s sentence. 2 Appellant raises one issue on appeal : whether the sentence to nearly four years of confinement and a dismissal is inappropriately severe

. We have carefully considered the issue and find it does not require discussion or relief. See United States v. Guinn , 81 M.J. 195, 204 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (citing United States v. Matias , 25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987)).
We considered sua sponte whether relief is warranted for the delay from sentence to docketing with this court, a total of about 228 days. We applied Moreno and Livak , and conclude it is not. See United States v. Moreno
, 63 M.J. 1 29 , 142 ( C.A. A.F. 200 6 ) (establishing a presumption of unreasonable delay “where the record of trial is not docketed ” by the C ourt of C riminal A ppeals within a specific time frame ) ; United States v. Livak , 80 M.J. 631, 633 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2020) (establishing an aggregate sentence

- to

- docketing time frame of 150 days for facially unreasonable delay in cases, like Appellant ’ s, that were referred to trial on or after 1 January 2019). The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles

1 References to the punitive provisions of the UCMJ are to the M anual for C

ourts

M artial, United States (201 6 ed.)

. All other references to the UCMJ are to the M anual for C ourts

- M artial, United States (201 9 ed.)

.

2 The convening authority signed a D ecision on A ction M emorandum on 3 November 2022, wherein he approved the sentence in its entirety. The convening authority replaced that memorandum on 22 November 2022, wherein he suspended th e adjudged forfeitures and waived the automatic forfeitures , but did not approve the remainder of the sentence

. Although Appellant did not identify this error on appeal, we tested it for material prejudice and found none. See generally United States v. Brubaker

- Escobar
, 81 M.J. 471 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (per curiam).United States v. Dillon , No. ACM 4046 3

3 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, t he findings and senten ce are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court