United States v. Nakken

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM S32767 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Nathaniel E. NAKKEN Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 10 October 2024 ________________________ Military Judge: Charles G. Warren.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 31 May 2023 by SpCM convened at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Sentence entered by military judge on July 2023: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 5 months, reduc- tion to E-1, and a reprimand.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jarett Merk, USAF; Major Samantha P. Golseth, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel J. Pete Ferrell, USAF; Major Regina Henenlotter, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before JOHNSON, GRUEN, and DOUGLAS, 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 ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.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: The findings are correct in law, and the sentence is correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant oc- curred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 United States v. Nakken, No. ACM S32767

U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d) (Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.)).* Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

* Although not raised by Appellant, we note the period between Appellant’s sentencing on 31 May 2023 and the date the case was docketed with this court on 8 January 2024 exceeded 150 days. See United States v. Livak, 80 M.J. 631, 633 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2020) (establishing an aggregate sentence-to-docketing 150-day threshold for facially unreasonable delay in cases, like Appellant’s, that were referred to trial on or after 1 January 2019). While we do not find this period of delay de minimis, after fully consid- ering the record of trial and applicable case law, we conclude no relief is warranted.

See, e.g., United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.); United States v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015), aff’d, 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016).