United States v. Hollenback

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE

C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________

No. ACM 40481 ________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee v.

Kris A. HOLLENBACK

Major (O-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ____________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 2 August 2024 ________________________

Military Judge: Thomas A. Smith.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 31 January 2023 by GCM convened at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. Sentence entered by military judge on 28 March 2023: Dismissal and confinement for 3 years.

For Appellant: Major Spencer R. Nelson, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel J. Pete Ferrell, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Captain Kate E. Lee, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Es- quire.

Before: JOHNSON, ANNEXSTAD, and GRUEN, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4. ________________________

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 one specifica- tion of wrongful possession of child pornography and one specification of wrongful viewing of child pornography in violation of Article 134, Uniform of United States v. Hollenback, No. ACM 40481

Code Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934.1 The military judge sentenced Appellant to a dismissal and three years’ confinement. The convening author- ity took no action on the findings or the adjudged sentence. Further, the con- vening authority waived automatic forfeitures for six months for the benefit of Appellant’s two dependent children.

Appellant raises one issue on appeal: whether as applied to Appellant, ref- erence to 18 U.S.C. § 922 in the Statement of Trial Results and entry of judg- ment is unconstitutional where the Government cannot demonstrate that bar- ring his possession of firearms is constitutional2 when he was not convicted of a violent offense.3

After carefully considering this issue and for the reasons explained in United States v. Vanzant, __ M.J. __, No. ACM 22004, 2024 CCA LEXIS 215, at *24 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 28 May 2024), and United States v. Lepore, 81 M.J. 759, 763 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2021) (en banc), we find Appellant is not entitled to relief.

The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 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