United States v. REGUEIRA

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before KISOR, GANNON, and HARRELL Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Shane D. REGUEIRA Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant No. 202400048 _________________________ Decided: 26 March 2025

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Eric A. Catto Sentence adjudged 29 September 2023 by a special court-martial tried at Ma- rine Corps Base Hawaii, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for eight months, for- feiture of $1,278 pay per month for eight months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Lauren A. Howes, JAGC, USNR For Appellee: Lieutenant Michael A. Tuosto JAGC, USN United States v. Regueira, NMCCA No. 202400048 Opinion of the Court _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________ PER CURIAM: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas, of one specification of wrongful appropriation in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), one specification of assault consum- mated by a battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, and one specification of unlawful entry in violation of Article 129, UCMJ. 1 Appellant asserts in his sole assignment of error that the Entry of Judgment fails to comply with Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)

1111(b) because it does not correctly summarize each specification. Appellant does not, however, specifically identify what required information is lacking. Rather, Ap- pellant only implies that the summary of the Specification of Charge III should iden- tify the victim of the assault consummated by a battery. We have previously rejected that argument, 2 and we do so again here. The summaries of the specifications in the Entry of Judgment comply with R.C.M. 1111(b) and the minimum requirements laid out by this Court in United States v. Wadaa. 3 After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 4 The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

1 10 U.S.C. §§ 921, 928, 929.

2 United States v. Brown, No. 202300221, 2025 CCA LEXIS 62, at *5 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2025) (unpublished).

3 84 M.J. 652, 655 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 2024).

4 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ.