United States v. Denny

U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM 40360 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Matthew R. DENNEY Master Sergeant (E-7), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary 1 Decided 8 March 2024 ________________________ Military Judge: Dayle P. Percle.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 7 July 2022 by GCM convened at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. Sentence entered by military judge on 22 August 2022: confinement for 12 months and reduction to E-4.

For Appellant: Major Matthew L. Blyth, USAF.

For Appellee: Colonel Steven R. Kaufman, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel J.

Peter Ferrell, USAF; Major Olivia B. Hoff, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before RICHARDSON, DOUGLAS, and WARREN, 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 ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.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. Denney, No. ACM 40360

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 distribution of child pornography in violation of Article 134, Uniform of Code Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934.2 After accepting Appellant’s plea, the military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for 12 months, reduction to the grade of E-4, and a reprimand. The convening authority dis- approved the reprimand and, in accordance with the plea agreement, waived automatic forfeitures for six months.

Appellant raises one issue: whether as applied to this case, reference to 18 U.S.C. § 922 in the staff judge advocate’s indorsement to the entry of judgment is unconstitutional because the Government cannot demonstrate that barring his possession of firearms is “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”3 when he stands convicted of distribution of child por- nography. We have carefully considered this issue, and find no discussion or relief is warranted. See United States v. Guinn, 81 M.J. 195, 204 (C.A.A.F.

2021) (citing United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356 (C.M.A. 1987)).

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