United States v. Lawson

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM 23034 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Andrew V. LAWSON Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary1 Decided 17 October 2024 ________________________ Military Judge: Mark F. Rosenow.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 3 February 2023 by SpCM convened at Lit- tle Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Sentence entered by military judge on 3 March 2023: Confinement for 2 months, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 12 months, and reduction to E-1.

For Appellant: Major Spencer R. Nelson, USAF.

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

Peter Ferrell, USAF; Major Vanessa Bairos, USAF; Captain Tyler L.

Washburn, 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 ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.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. Lawson, No. ACM 23034

________________________ PER CURIAM: A special court-martial composed of a panel of officer and enlisted members found Appellant guilty, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of wrongful possession of Schedule I controlled substances and two specifications of wrong- ful introduction of Schedule I controlled substances, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a; 2,3 one spec- ification of unlawful entry, in violation of Article 129, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 929; and one specification of disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934.4,5 The members sentenced Appellant to two months’ confine- ment, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 12 months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority took no action on the findings or sen- tence.

Appellant personally raises two issues on appeal which we have rephrased: (1) whether the Government can prove the 18 U.S.C. § 922 firearms prohibition is constitutional as applied to Appellant and whether this court has jurisdic- tion to decide that issue; (2) whether the Air Force Office of Special Investiga- tions committed prejudicial misconduct in its investigation of Appellant.6 We have carefully considered issue (1) and conclude it warrants neither discussion nor relief. See United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A.

1987); United States v. Vanzant, 84 M.J. 671, 680–81 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2024) All references to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.) .

United States v. Lawson, No. ACM 23034

(holding the 18 U.S.C. § 922 firearm prohibition notation included in the staff judge advocate’s indorsement to the entry of judgment is beyond a Court of Criminal Appeals’ statutory authority to review).

We also have carefully considered issue (2) and find it also does not require discussion or relief. See Matias, 25 M.J. at 361.

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