United States v. View Per Curiam

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Washington, D.C. UNITED STATES v. Schuyler L. VIEW, Seaman Apprentice Food Service Specialist (E-2), U.S. Coast Guard CGCMS 24340 Docket No. 1256 May 2006 Special Court-Martial convened by Commanding Officer, Integrated Support Command Honolulu, Hawaii. Tried at Honolulu, Hawaii, on 30 August 2005.

Military Judge: CAPT John C. Odell, USCG Trial Counsel: LCDR James B. Pruett, USCG Defense Counsel: LTJG C. Michael Layne, JAGC, USNR Appellate Defense Counsel: LCDR Nancy J. Truax, USCG Appellate Government Counsel: LT D. Sean Baer, USCGR BEFORE PANEL NINE BAUM, MCCLELLAND, & TEAL Appellate Military Judges Per Curiam: Appellant was tried by special court-martial, military judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted of four specifications involving methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA (“Ecstasy”)), a Schedule I controlled substance: one specification for wrongfully using that drug alone, one specification for wrongfully using MDMA (Ecstasy) and methamphetamine, one specification for wrongfully introducing some MDMA (Ecstasy) onto an installation used by the armed forces or subject to the control of the armed forces, and one specification for wrongfully distributing some MDMA (Ecstasy) to SN Steven D. Rothig, USCG, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and confinement for 150 days. The Convening Authority approved the United States v. Schuyler L. VIEW, No. 1256 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2006) sentence as adjudged and suspended confinement in excess of ninety days for a period of twelve months from the date of the Convening Authority’s action, pursuant to the terms of the pretrial agreement.

Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Article 66, UCMJ. Upon such review, the findings and sentence are determined to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved and partially suspended below, are affirmed.

For the Court,

Jane R. Lim Clerk of the Court