U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 40012 (f rev)
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Sean M. DALEY
Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Upon Further Review
Decided 16 May 2022
________________________
Military Judge: Colin P. Eichenberger.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 3 December 2020 by GCM convened at Holloman
Air Force Base, New Mexico. Sentence entered by military judge on 12 January
2021: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 24 months, forfeiture of all pay
and allowances, and reduction to E-1.
For Appellant: Captain David L. Bosner, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Major Ab-
bigayle C. Hunter, USAF; Major John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen
Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, KEY, and MEGINLEY, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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.
________________________
PER CURIAM:
Appellant’s case is before our court for the second time. Our court previ-
ously remanded this case to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary,
to resolve Appellant’s sole assignment of error, a substantial issue with the
United States v. Daley, No. ACM 40012 (f rev)
completeness of the record of trial—specifically, attachments to the stipulation
of fact, Prosecution Exhibit 1, were missing. United States v. Daley, No. ACM
40012,
2022 CCA LEXIS 7, at *5 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 5 Jan. 2022) (unpub. op.).
On 14 January 2022, the military judge signed a certificate of correction to the
record of trial and the record of trial was returned to this court for completion
of its appellate review on 1 February 2022. We find the military judge followed
the procedures of Rule for Courts-Martial 1112(d) to reconstruct the missing
parts of the record, that the defects in the record of trial have been corrected,
and Appellant’s assignment of error is now moot.
The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Ar-
ticles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d), Manual for Courts-
Martial, United States (2019 ed.).
Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
2
