Court Opinion

ID: 9949811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 17:02:34.956755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:00.939737
License: Public Domain

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

                                 Before
                        KISOR, DALY, and MIZER
                        Appellate Military Judges

                        _________________________

                          UNITED STATES
                              Appellee

                                     v.

                       Justin M. COLLETTI
                Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps
                               Appellant

                             No. 202300104

                        _________________________

                          Decided: 12 March 2024

    Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

                              Military Judge:
                              Ryan C. Lipton

 Sentence adjudged 4 January 2023 by a special court-martial convened
 at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, consist-
 ing of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment:
 reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $1,278.00 pay per month for 12 months,
 and a bad-conduct discharge.

                            For Appellant:
                Captain Edward V. Hartman, JAGC, USN

                              For Appellee:
                  Lieutenant Lan T. Nguyen, JAGC, USN
                     Major Mary Claire Finnen, USMC
                 United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                               Opinion of the Court

   Judge MIZER delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Senior Judge
   KISOR and Judge DALY joined.

                           _________________________

                  PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT

                           _________________________

MIZER, Judge:
    Appellant was convicted, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of
failure to obey a lawful general order, one specification of obstruction of justice,
and one specification of wire fraud, 1 in violation of in violation of Articles 92,
131b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 2
    Appellant raises two assignments of error: (1) whether Appellant’s convic-
tion for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 was legally and factually
sufficient; and (2) whether the sentence adjudged is inappropriately severe if
the wire fraud charge is dismissed, leaving only the Article 92, UCMJ, and
Article 131b, UCMJ, violations remaining. 3
    One is often cautioned about believing everything one reads on the inter-
net. And this case would suggest that this axiom is especially true with respect
to internet dating sites. Appellant, a male staff sergeant, used the dating web-
site OkCupid, among others, 4 to engage in sexually explicit conversations with
two adult women, which ultimately resulted in the women exchanging sexually
explicit digital images with Appellant.
   But Appellant did so while posing as a woman, “Jenicae.” 5 He simultane-
ously also pretended to be Jenicae’s florist and lover, “Nikki,” who was pur-
portedly interested in having a threesome with the targeted women. This could
never happen, of course, because Appellant is neither Jenicae nor Nikki.

   1 The federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, was assimilated under Article

134, UCMJ.
   2 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 931b, 934.

   3 Appellant’s second assignment of error was raised pursuant to United States v.

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).
   4 Pros. Ex. 1 at 2.

   5 R. at 49.

                                         2
                 United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                               Opinion of the Court

    But that wasn’t the point. As he would later tell the military judge, the
object of Appellant’s fraud was obtaining digital nude images. 6 So, to accom-
plish his catfishing-for-pictures 7 scheme, Appellant used a digital image of an
unidentified woman to pose as Nikki. 8 He also used a series of intimate images
that his then-actual girlfriend had shared with him—with the expectation that
they would remain private—to pose as Jenicae. 9
    While Appellant slept on the Fourth of July 2021, his soon-to-be ex-girl-
friend discovered his catfishing efforts on his iPhone 11, and she reported him
to his command. 10
    The Government charged Appellant’s catfishing scheme under the federal
wire fraud statute, and Appellant pleaded guilty to that offense. 11 This appeal
followed.
   Because we conclude the digital images that were the object of Appellant’s
fraud implicate neither money nor traditional property interests, we set aside
Appellant’s plea and conviction for violating the federal wire fraud statute as
improvident. The remaining findings are also set aside, and a rehearing is au-
thorized. 12

                                 I. BACKGROUND

   1) The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals adopts the Court of Appeals for
      the Second Circuit’s “right-to-control” theory of criminal liability under
      the federal wire fraud statute.

   6 R. at 63.

   7 “‘Catfishing’ refers to the creation of a fake online identity, typically for use on

dating websites. Catfishing for profit, as the phrase suggests, describes catfishing in
which the fake identity is used to obtain money from a duped victim.” United States v.
Jules, 777 Fed. Appx. 457, 458 (11th Cir. 2019). And such schemes are apparently more
common than one might expect. See, e.g., United States v. Ashmore, No. ACM 40036,
2022 CCA LEXIS 141 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2022).
   8 Pros. Ex. 1 at 3.

   9 Pros. Ex. 11 at 1.

   10 Id.

   11 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

   12 We have considered Appellant’s second assignment of error. See United States v.

Scott, No. 24-0063/AR, 2024 CAAF LEXIS 68 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 1, 2024). But, in light of
our decision, it is unnecessary to address it.

                                           3
                   United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                                 Opinion of the Court

    Although this case began in bucolic Beaufort, South Carolina, the genesis
of Appellant’s wire fraud conviction rests with the Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals’ (AFCCA) decision in United States v. Martinez. 13
     Martinez involved a similar catfishing scheme where the defendant sought
to trick three female airmen into sending him nude digital images by posing as
one of the women and telling them that “she” had been paid thousands of dol-
lars to sell nude and sexually suggestive images to a magazine. 14 He promised
the targeted airmen that they too would be paid thousands of dollars for simi-
lar images. 15 All they had to do was take some pictures and send him their
bank account information so that he could pay them. One of the airmen did
so. 16
    But, instead of paying his victim for her work as promised, Airman Mar-
tinez used the images to blackmail her for additional images and henceforth
required her to address him as “daddy.” 17 Ultimately, as happened here, the
Government charged Airman Martinez with violating the federal wire fraud
statute.
    The AFCCA began its analysis in Martinez by noting that neither party
could cite precedent for charging the conduct at issue as wire fraud, and that
the case raised an issue of first impression. 18 Given that the wire fraud statute
was enacted back in 1952, the absence of any precedent should have alerted
the AFCCA—and subsequently the Government in this case—that it was “pro-
ceeding at flank speed…off course in thick fog, with no one on the bridge, helm
or engine order telegraph.” 19 As recently as last term, the Supreme Court again

   13 No. ACM 39973, 2022 CCA LEXIS 212 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 6, 2022) aff’d

on other grounds, 83 M.J. 439 (C.A.A.F. 2023). The appellant in Martinez raised only
one issue before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: whether by denying Ap-
pellant’s motion to instruct the panel that a guilty verdict required unanimity, the
military judge violated appellant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights. It didn’t. United
States v. Anderson, 83 M.J. 291 (C.A.A.F. 2023).
   14 Id. at *7.

   15 Id. at *8.

   16 Id. at *8.

   17 Id. at *8.

   18 Id. at *22.

   19 See generally, United States v. Jones, 7 M.J. 806, 811 (N.M.C.M.R. 1979).

                                          4
                United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                              Opinion of the Court

cautioned lower courts against embracing “novel” interpretations of the federal
wire fraud statute. 20
    Nevertheless, the AFCCA began its analysis by correctly holding that the
federal wire fraud statute is “limited in scope to the protection of property
rights[.]” 21 But are digital images property for purposes of that statute? The
AFCCA thought so.
     After all, the AFCCA reasoned, wire fraud convictions have been affirmed
in federal courts for cases involving intangible property. 22 The Court further
noted that, “[w]hile the above federal cases involved intangible property of a
business,” there was “no reason for a different result when the intangible prop-
erty belongs to an individual[.]” 23
    The Court then adopted the holding of the Second Circuit “that a defining
feature of most property is the right to control the asset.” 24 And the victim in
Martinez “suffered a loss of control of her private nude photos.” 25 The Martinez
Court concluded that the victim’s “property right to control her nude, private
photos,” was “lost when she succumbed to Appellant’s scheme to defraud.” 26
Accordingly, the AFCCA affirmed Airman Martinez’s conviction for wire fraud.
   2) Citing Martinez as authority, the Government charges Appellant with
      violating the federal wire fraud statute.
    The day before Appellant pleaded guilty, the military judge presciently sent
an email asking, among other things, about Martinez. 27 “Based upon the charg-
ing, I suspect the parties are familiar with” Martinez. 28 “If you are not, please
ensure you are familiar with it before we begin tomorrow.” 29

   20 See, e.g., Percoco v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 1130, 1136 (2023).

   21 Martinez, 2022 CCA LEXIS 212 at *18 (citing McNally v. United States, 483 U.S.

350 (1987)).
   22 Id. at *21 (citing Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1987)).

   23 Id. at *23.

   24 Id. (citing United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 170 (2d Cir. 2021), rev’d, 143

S.Ct. 1130 (2023)).
   25 Id.

   26 Id.

   27 App. Ex. II at 3.

   28 Id.

   29 Id.

                                           5
                  United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                                Opinion of the Court

    The Government responded that it was relying on Martinez “primarily for
the proposition that the subject images constitute ‘property’ within the mean-
ing of the wire fraud statute.” 30 The Government also acknowledged “that cir-
cumstances of the scheme in Martinez are significantly more aggravating than”
this case. 31
   3) Appellant pleads guilty to violating the federal wire fraud statute.
    The following day, the military judge referenced the previous day’s email
exchange saying the parties had discussed Martinez before going on the rec-
ord. 32 Appellant then pleaded guilty to violating the federal wire fraud stat-
ute—three times. 33 In both a stipulation of fact and his colloquy with the mili-
tary judge, Appellant admitted that the digital images he fraudulently ob-
tained were “personal intangible property” 34 and the “sole property” of the per-
son depicted. 35
   4) One hundred and twenty-seven days after Appellant pleaded guilty, the
      Supreme Court overruled the Second Circuit’s right-to-control theory of
      criminal liability under the federal wire fraud statute.
    Martinez was barely a year old when the Supreme Court issued its decision
in Ciminelli v. United States. 36 Louis Ciminelli was indicted under the wire
fraud statute for participating in a conspiracy to rig the bidding process to en-
sure his firm was awarded a $750 million construction project in Buffalo, New
York. 37 The Government relied on the Second Circuit’s right-to-control theory
to show that Mr. Ciminelli had deprived his victim, a non-profit affiliated with
the State University of New York, of potentially valuable economic information
necessary to make discretionary economic decisions—who should be awarded
a $750 million contract. After all, didn’t the non-profit have the intangible right
to control the use of its $750 million?

   30 Id. at 2.

   31 Id.

   32 R. at 27.

   33 The Defense encountered some difficulty in announcing Appellant’s pleas, but

succeeded on the third attempt. R. at 16-18.
   34 Pros. Ex. 1 at 2.

   35 R. at 57; Pros. Ex. 1 at 2.

   36 143 S. Ct. 1121 (2023).

   37 Id. at 1125.

                                          6
                United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                              Opinion of the Court

    The Court’s opinion began in the same way as the AFCCA’s did in Martinez,
by noting “lower federal courts for decades interpreted the mail and wire fraud
statutes to protect intangible interests unconnected to traditional property
rights.” 38 But the Court then immediately noted it had spent more than three
decades attempting to halt “that trend” beginning with its 1987 decision in
McNally v. United States. 39
    The Second Circuit’s right-to-control theory was just the latest § 1343 ab-
erration to arrive at the Court. According to the right-to-control theory, “since
a defining feature of most property is the right to control the asset in question,
the property interests protected by the wire fraud statute include the interest
of a victim in controlling his or her own assets.” 40 In Ciminelli, the Court over-
ruled this line of precedent and held that the right-to-control theory “cannot be
squared with the text of the federal fraud statutes, which are ‘limited in scope
to the protection of property rights.’” 41
    Much like the AFCCA’s decision in Martinez, the Court noted that when
the Second Circuit “first recognized the right-to-control theory in 1991—dec-
ades after the wire fraud statute was enacted and over a century after the mail
fraud statute was enacted—it could cite no authority that established ‘poten-
tially valuable economic information’ as a traditionally recognized property in-
terest.” 42 And the Second Circuit had not since attempted to ground the right-
to-control theory in traditional property notions. 43
    For its part, upon being haled before the Supreme Court in Ciminelli, the
Government immediately beat a hasty retreat and abandoned the right-to-con-
trol theory. Despite relying on the right-to-control theory for decades, the Gov-
ernment conceded that if “the right to make informed decisions about the dis-
position of one’s assets, without more, were treated as the sort of ‘property’
giving rise to wire fraud, it would risk expanding the federal fraud statutes
beyond property fraud as defined at common law and as Congress would have

   38 Id. at 1126.

   39 Id. at 1127 (citing McNally, 483 U.S. at 350).

   40 Id. at 1127 (citing United States v. Lebedev, 932    F.3d 40, 48 (2d Cir. 2019))
(cleaned up).
   41 Id. at 1127 (citing McNally, 483 U.S. at 360)).

   42 Id. at 1127 (citing United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 461-64 (2d Cir. 1991)).

   43 Id. at 1127-28.

                                           7
                United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                              Opinion of the Court

understood it.” 44 “Thus, even the Government now agrees that the Second Cir-
cuit’s right-to-control theory is unmoored from the federal fraud statutes’
text.” 45
    But the Government makes no such concession here. Despite the repeated
references in the record to Martinez, and Martinez’s express reliance on Second
Circuit precedent like Percoco that has since been reversed, the Government
insists Appellant “was not prosecuted under a ‘right-to-control’ theory.” 46 No.
Appellant was prosecuted, according to the Government, under an “exclusive
use” theory, which the Government maintains is a “traditionally recognized
property right.” 47 Under this newly-minted, traditional property right, the vic-
tims in this case lost “the exclusive use over their intangible property—the
sexually explicit depictions of their bodies in digital photographs.” 48 Put an-
other way, they lost the right to control the use of their digital images. Needless
to say, that is “slicing the baloney mighty thin.” 49
    And so, confronted with the intervening, unanimous decision of the Su-
preme Court in Ciminelli, we must decide whether prosecuting Appellant for
fraudulently obtaining digital images on internet dating sites expands the wire
fraud statute beyond the type of property fraud as defined at common law and
as Congress would have understood it when it enacted the wire fraud statute
in 1952.

                                 II. DISCUSSION

A. Rejection of a guilty plea on appellate review requires that the rec-
ord of trial show a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning
the guilty plea. 50
    As noted by the Government, Appellant incorrectly frames his challenge to
his conviction for wire fraud on the basis of legal and factual sufficiency, pre-
sumably because that is how the issue now before the Court was raised at the

   44 Id. at 1128.

   45 Id.

   46 Gov’t Br. at 23.

   47 Gov’t Br. at 21.

   48 Gov’t Br. at 21.

   49 See generally, Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148, 160 (2018).

   50 United States v. Prater, 32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A. 1991).

                                          8
                 United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                               Opinion of the Court

AFCCA. 51 But unlike the appellant in Martinez, Appellant pleaded guilty 52 to
violating the federal wire fraud statute, and so the question before the Court
is whether his plea is provident. 53
    We review a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of
discretion. 54 A military judge abuses her discretion if she fails to obtain an ad-
equate factual basis to support the plea—an area in which we afford significant
deference. 55 Additionally, any ruling based on an erroneous view of the law
also constitutes an abuse of discretion. 56 And changes in the law can also ren-
der an appellant’s plea improvident on direct appeal. 57 Where a providence in-
quiry raises pure questions of law, we review the plea de novo. 58
    In summary, we review a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea
for an abuse of discretion and questions of law arising from the guilty plea de
novo. 59 In doing so, we apply the substantial basis test, looking at whether
there is something in the record of trial, with regard to the factual basis or the
law, that would raise a substantial question regarding appellant’s guilty plea. 60

B. The military judge abused his discretion by accepting Appellant’s
guilty plea to violating the federal wire fraud statute.
   “The Government in this case needed to prove property fraud.” 61 And the
parties agree that § 1343 prohibits only deceptive schemes to deprive a victim

    51 Compare Def. Br. at 2 with Gov’t Br. at 11.

    52 R. at 16-18.

    53 Pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 910(j), an unconditional guilty plea waives

any objection aside from whether the prosecution may be constitutionally maintained
and whether there is a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the plea. United
States v. Bradley, 68 M.J. 279, 282 (C.A.A.F. 2010).
    54 United States v. Eberle, 44 M.J. 374, 375 (C.A.A.F. 1996).

    55 United States v. Jordan, 57 M.J. 236, 238 (C.A.A.F. 2002).

    56 United States v. Weeks, 71 M.J. 44 , 49 (C.A.A.F. 2012); United States v. Inabi-

nette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008).
    57 See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 58 M.J. 450, 453 (C.A.A.F. 2003); United

States v. Williams, No. ARMY 20140691, 2016 CCA LEXIS 171 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Mar.
17, 2016) (unpublished).
    58 Inabinette, 66 M.J. at 322.

    59 Id.

    60 Id.

    61 Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571 (2020).

                                           9
                United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                              Opinion of the Court

of money or property. 62 Neither party asserts that the digital images ex-
changed in this case have any monetary value, so this case turns solely on
whether there is a substantial basis to question Appellant’s plea that digital
images are “property” under § 1343. We conclude there is.
    In arguing that digital images are property, the Government begins by cit-
ing Carpenter 63 for the dubious proposition that property can be tangible or
intangible. 64 To be fair, the Carpenter Court did hold that the Wall Street Jour-
nal’s confidential business information was intangible property protected by
the mail and wire fraud statutes. 65 But the Government omits from its brief, 66
as the late Paul Harvey 67 would say, “the rest of the story.” 68
    A year after Carpenter was decided, Congress, swiftly reacted to the Court’s
decision from the previous term in McNally and amended the federal fraud
statues “specifically to cover one of the ‘intangible rights’ that lower courts had
protected under [the statutes] prior to McNally: ‘the intangible right of honest
services.’” 69
   Aside from the intangible right of honest services, McNally “stopped the
development of the intangible-rights doctrine in its tracks.” 70 Or, as the Court
put it in Ciminelli, “despite the wide array of intangible rights courts protected

   62 Compare Def. Br. at 8 with Gov’t Br. at 14.

   63 484 U.S. at 25.

   64 Gov’t Br. at 15.

   65 Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 25.

   66 We do not suggest that this omission was intentional. The AFCCA also appar-

ently thought federal wire fraud jurisprudence was suspended in amber in 1987. Mar-
tinez, 2022 CCA LEXIS 212 at *21 (citing Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 26-27).
   67 “‘The Rest of the Story,’ a Monday-through-Friday radio program that aired be-

tween 1976 and 2009, was hosted by famed commentator Paul Harvey. In each pro-
gram, Harvey told a story about a little known or forgotten matter, leaving an im-
portant and usually surprising nugget of information until the end. As every episode
unfolded, Harvey encouraged his audience to stay tuned for ‘the rest of the story.’”
People v. Tippet, 2023 CO 61, 75 n. 1 (Colo. 2023) (Samour, J. dissenting) (internal
citations omitted).
   68 See generally, United States v. Medina, 430 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2005).

   69 Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 19-20 (2000).

   70 Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 401 (2010).

                                          10
                United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                              Opinion of the Court

under the fraud statutes pre-McNally, [Congress] revived ‘only’ the intangible
right of honest services.” 71
    Now, less than a year after these words were written in Ciminelli, what are
we to make of the Government’s argument that a second intangible property
right survived Congress’ 1988 amendment to the wire fraud statute? Not much.
Digital images have existed since 1957, 72 and the Government can’t identify
even a single case so much as referencing the purported traditional, intangible
property right to “exclusive use” of digital images for purposes of the wire fraud
statute.
    On the other side of the ledger, since McNally and Carpenter were decided
in 1987, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upbraided the Federal Circuit
Courts of Appeal for extending intangible property rights beyond honest ser-
vices in cases like Ciminelli. 73 And so in this case the Government now invites
this Court to take its turn in the dock by following two decisions—from the
Eleventh Circuit—that originated in 1984. 74
   As the Government notes, both cases, United States v. Diwan75 and United
States v. Cross, 76 involved the same scheme to commit mail fraud 77 where the
defendants convinced the parents of child actors to permit them to take nude
photographs 78 of their children as part of a purported casting call for a fictional
documentary. 79

   71 Ciminelli, 143 S. Ct. at 1128 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).

   72   National Institute of Standards and Technology, First Digital Image,
https://www.nist.gov/mathematics-statistics/first-digital-image (last visited Feb. 27,
2024).
   73 See, e.g., Kelly, 140 S. Ct. at 1568 (rejecting Third Circuit’s holding that defend-

ants committed property fraud by realigning toll lanes on the George Washington
Bridge through “deception, corruption, and abuse of power.”); Cleveland, 531 U.S. at
23 (rejecting Fifth Circuit precedent holding that Louisiana video poker licenses were
“property” for purposes of the federal wire fraud statute).
   74 Gov’t Br. at 18-19.

   75 864 F.2d 715, 719 (11th Cir. 1989)

   76 928 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir. 1991).

   77 18 U.S.C. § 1346.

   78 The negatives were then sent through the mail so that one of the co-conspirators

could develop the film at his home, which resulted in an indictment for eighteen counts
of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Cross, 928 F.2d at 1035.
   79 Cross, 928 F.2d at 1035.

                                           11
                 United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                               Opinion of the Court

   The Eleventh Circuit upheld the challenged convictions for mail fraud be-
cause the defendants “schemed to deprive the intended victims of the fraud,
the girls, the talent agency, and the photographer of property and money.” 80
Or, as the Court put it in Cross two years later, the defendants “schemed to
defraud the Tampa models, along with their families, the photographer, and
the modeling agency, of various services and property of some value.” 81
   In contrast, the victims in this case weren’t actors expecting payment for
an audition or performance. And, again, both parties agree that the digital im-
ages at issue in this case are without economic value of any kind. 82 But the
Government, nevertheless, argues “there is no need to prove that the photo-
graphs had economic value or that the victims were deprived of a value.” 83 Yet,
even the cases offered by the Government, Cross and Diwan, say otherwise.
And so do we.
    Imagine if Appellant had used OkCupid to pretend that he was a lesbian
in order to fraudulently induce his victims into sending him pictures of them
rebuilding a carburetor. Would we be here discussing wire fraud? We think
not. And that suggests that the concern over the nude images in this case rests
in privacy 84 rather than the requisite traditional property interests rooted in
the common law.
    Or, what if Appellant had merely lied about something more pedestrian
such as his age, his weight, or his height—lies that may someday occur online?
Could the Government charge that scheme as wire fraud? Yes, says the Gov-
ernment. This is all wire fraud because Appellant would have fraudulently ob-
tained images of his victims’ “bodies in digital photographs.” 85 And although

    80 Diwan, 864 F.2d at 719.

    81 Cross, 928 F.2d at 1043-44.

    82 Compare Def. Br. at 12 with Gov’t Br. at 21.

    83 Gov’t Br. at 21.

    84 Congress has acted to protect the privacy interests at issue in this case. See 10 §

U.S.C. 117a. While some have argued that the UCMJ’s so-called “revenge porn” statute
“suffers from serious flaws and requires careful revision,” Major Joshua B. Fix, Fea-
ture: No. 1: The Revenge of Preemption: How to Correct Unintended Consequences of
the Military’s ‘Revenge Porn’ Statute, 2021 Army Lawyer 53 (2021), “if the statute
needs to be amended, that task should be left to Congress.” Fortis, Inc. v. United States,
420 F. Supp. 2d 166, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
    85 Gov’t Br. at 21.

                                           12
                United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                              Opinion of the Court

Appellant’s victims retained the original images, it is wire fraud, says the Gov-
ernment, because they lost the right to control the exclusive use of the images
depicting them. 86 Sound familiar?
   To be clear, the conduct in this case is despicable and potentially criminal
under the UCMJ, but if the wire fraud statute doesn’t protect the right to in-
formation needed to make discretionary economic decisions, like how to spend
$750 million, it certainly doesn’t protect the right to information needed to
make the discretionary decision to share nude digital images.
    Indeed, this case heralds the arrival of the parade of horribles predicted in
cases like Ciminelli and Cleveland. The Government’s “exclusive use” theory
of criminal liability “makes a federal crime of an almost limitless variety of
deceptive actions traditionally left to state contract and tort law—in flat con-
tradiction with our caution that ‘absent a clear statement by Congress,’ courts
should ‘not read the mail and wire fraud statues to place under federal super-
intendence a vast array of conduct traditionally policed by the States.” 87

   86 Gov’t Br. at 20.

   87 Ciminelli, 143 S. Ct. at 1128 (citing Cleveland, 531 U.S. at 27) (cleaned up).

                                          13
                United States v. Colletti, NMCCA No. 202300104
                              Opinion of the Court

                                  III. CONCLUSION

   Judges interpret the law as written, not as they wish it were written. 88 And
Congress may yet empower the Government to police internet dating sites to
ensure that Marines obtain nude photographs from otherwise consenting
adults without resorting to loathsome deception. Congress just hasn’t done
that in the federal wire fraud statute.
    After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel, the
finding of guilty as to the sole Specification under the Additional Charge, wire
fraud, is SET ASIDE. 89 The findings of guilt as to Charges I and II are SET
ASIDE. 90 The sentence is SET ASIDE. A rehearing is AUTHORIZED. 91

                                    FOR THE COURT:

                                    MARK K. JAMISON
                                    Clerk of Court

    88 Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1824 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J. dissenting).

    89 The remedy for finding a plea improvident is to set aside the finding based on

the improvident plea and authorize a rehearing. United States v. Riley, 72 M.J. 115,
122 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (citation omitted).
    90 While we would normally affirm findings unrelated to an assignment of error

raised by an appellant and authorize only a rehearing as to sentence, this case presents
a mutual misunderstanding regarding a material term of a plea agreement—that Ap-
pellant could plead guilty to violating the federal wire fraud statute under the facts of
this case. See generally, United States v. Lundy, 60 M.J. 52, 57 (C.A.A.F. 2004). In their
sentencing arguments below, both parties agreed that the purported crime of wire
fraud was the gravamen of this case. (R. at 159; 163.) Further, Appellant’s second as-
signment of error, raised pursuant to Grostefon, alleges that the sentence negotiated
between the parties and ultimately adjudged in this case is inappropriately severe if
Appellant’s conviction for wire fraud is dismissed. While we need not reach that issue,
we take it into consideration as we determine whether to rectify a mutual misunder-
standing of a material term in a plea agreement by imposing alternative relief on an
unwilling appellant in violation of basic due process. United States v. Perron, 58 M.J.
78, 86 (C.A.A.F. 2003). Under the facts of this case, we are required to nullify the plea
agreement and return the parties to the status quo ante. Id.
    91 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ.

                                           14