UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40463

________________________

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 2024

________________________

Military Judges: Thomas A. Smith (pretrial proceedings); Jennifer E.

Powell (pretrial motion); Matthew P. Stoffel (pretrial motions); Christopher D. James.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 6 October 2022 by GCM convened at 

Misawa Air Base, Japan. Sentence entered by military judge on 2 December 2022: Dismissal, confinement for 46 months, and forfeiture of 

all pay and allowances.

For Appellant: Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Captain Trevor N. Ward, 

USAF.

For Appellee: Colonel Matthew D. Talcott, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel J. 

Peter 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 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 40463

2

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, in 

accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of two specifications of sexual abuse of a child and one specification of indecent visual recording in violation of Articles 120b and 120c, Uniform of Code Military Justice 

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 920b, 920c.

1 The military judge sentenced Appellant to 

a dismissal, confinement for 46 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. 

129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (establishing a presumption of unreasonable delay 

“where the record of trial is not docketed” by the Court of Criminal Appeals 

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 Manual for CourtsMartial, United States (2016 ed.). All other references to the UCMJ are to the Manual 

for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

2 The convening authority signed a Decision on Action Memorandum 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 the 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 40463

3

59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the findings 

and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court