United States v. Seuam

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM S32497 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Sengchanh P. SEUAM Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant ________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 5 October 2018 ________________________ Military Judge: Mark F. Rosenow (motions); Michael D. Schag (mo- tions); Shelly W. Schools (arraignment and trial). Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months, forfeiture of $1,066.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E- 1. Sentence adjudged 5 October 2017 by SpCM convened at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. For Appellant: Major Meghan R. Glines-Barney, USAF. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire. Before JOHNSON, DENNIS, and LEWIS, Appellate Military Judges. ________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4. ________________________ PER CURIAM: The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er- ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles United States v. Seuam, No. ACM S32497 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. * FOR THE COURT CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court * Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, we note the staff judge advocate recommendation erroneously advised the convening authority that the max- imum sentence that could be imposed by this special court-martial included, inter alia, a fine in addition to forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 12 months. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 201(f)(2)(B)(i); R.C.M. 1003(b)(3); United States v. Books, No. ACM S32369, 2017 CCA LEXIS 226, at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 31 Mar. 2017 (unpub. op.). However, under the facts of this case we find no colorable showing of possible prejudice, and therefore we affirm. See United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435, 436–37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citation omitted). 2