U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 40028
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Tarif R. WILLIAMS
Captain (O-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 5 April 2022
________________________
Military Judge: Christopher D. James.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 27 October 2020 by GCM convened at
Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. Sentence entered by military judge
on 13 November 2020: Dismissal and confinement for 13 months.
For Appellant: Major Matthew L. Blyth, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amanda L.K. Linares, USAF; Lieuten-
ant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before KEY, ANNEXSTAD, and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military
Judges.
Judge ANNEXSTAD delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior
Judge KEY and Judge MEGINLEY joined.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
________________________
ANNEXSTAD, Judge:
A general court-martial composed of a military judge convicted Appellant,
in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement (PA), of one
specification each of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, wrongful introduction
United States v. Williams, No. ACM 40028
of marijuana onto a military installation, and wrongful use of marijuana on
divers occasions in violation of Articles 81 and 112a, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 912a.1,2
The PA provided that the military judge must enter a sentence consisting
of a dismissal. It also provided for a confinement range of between 0 and 24
months for each of the conspiracy and wrongful introduction offenses, and a
confinement range of between 0 and 6 months for the wrongful use offense.
Lastly, the PA also provided that any periods of confinement were to be served
concurrently. There were no other limitations on the sentence that could be
imposed. After accepting Appellant’s pleas of guilty, the military judge sen-
tenced Appellant to a dismissal and 13 months of confinement.3 Appellant sub-
sequently requested the convening authority both defer and waive the auto-
matic forfeitures in his case for the benefit of his son. On 10 November 2020,
the convening authority signed a Decision on Action memorandum indicating
she was taking no action on the findings and sentence and denying Appellant’s
request for deferment and waiver of the automatic forfeitures “due to the egre-
gious nature of the charges” of which Appellant was convicted.
On appeal, Appellant raises two issues: (1) whether Appellant’s sentence is
inappropriately severe; and (2) whether the convening authority abused her
discretion by denying Appellant’s request to defer forfeitures.4 With respect to
issue (2), we have carefully considered Appellant’s contention and find it does
not require further discussion or warrant relief. See United States v. Matias,
25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987). With respect to the remaining issue, we find
no error materially prejudicial to a substantial right of Appellant and affirm
the findings and sentence.
1 All references to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019
ed.).
2 Pursuant to the plea agreement, the convening authority withdrew and dismissed
(with prejudice upon completion of appellate review) one specification of attempted
possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in violation Article 80, UCMJ,
10
U.S.C. § 880.
3 The military judge sentenced Appellant to 13 months’ confinement for the conspiracy
specification, 13 months’ confinement for the wrongful introduction specification, and
3 months’ confinement for the wrongful use specification, running concurrently. At the
time of his sentence announcement, the military judge also recommended the conven-
ing authority waive the automatic forfeitures for the benefit of Appellant’s son.
4Both issues were personally raised by Appellant pursuant to United States v.
Grostefon,
12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).
2
United States v. Williams, No. ACM 40028
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant joined the United States Air Force on 23 June 2012 and contin-
uously served as a cyberspace operations officer. In November 2018, he volun-
teered for a one-year deployment to Al Udeid Air Base (AUAB) in Qatar.
Shortly, after his arrival in Qatar, he met and entered into a romantic rela-
tionship with JS, a defense contractor, who worked on base. Between February
and July 2019, Appellant smoked marijuana with JS on two occasions at her
off-base apartment in Qatar. Through JS, Appellant met “Kev,” also known as
“Trav,” and another individual, EJ, also known as “E.” During group discus-
sions that followed, Appellant agreed to deliver marijuana to Kev and EJ in
exchange for money. Specifically, the group devised a plan to ship marijuana
to Appellant at AUAB, using a fake name to hide Appellant’s participation but
including the actual mailing address for the Combined Air Operations Center
(CAOC) on AUAB. Appellant would pick up the marijuana at the CAOC and
deliver it to Kev off base in Qatar. Kev and EJ then planned to distribute the
marijuana to others in Qatar.
Between July and August 2019, Appellant received two packages at the
CAOC, one containing marijuana and the other containing electronic ciga-
rettes which are contraband in Qatar. In accordance with their plan, Appellant
picked up the packages from the CAOC and delivered or attempted to deliver
them to Kev. Appellant received approximately $1,366.00 for the first delivery.
About a month later, military personnel picking up parcels at Doha Interna-
tional Airport in Qatar for delivery to AUAB detected the scent of marijuana
in a bag of packages. When the mail truck arrived on AUAB, the mail clerks
removed the suspected bag first and brought it to their supervisor’s office. A
short while later, security forces investigators responded to the mail facility
with a drug detection dog. After the dog detected the smell of marijuana, in-
vestigators opened the package and discovered that it contained over two
pounds of marijuana. The investigators then created a decoy package, with a
tracking device, which Appellant later picked up at the CAOC and took to his
on-base dorm room. Shortly thereafter, investigators arrived at Appellant’s
room where they found and seized the decoy package with Appellant’s consent.
Following a rights advisement, Appellant admitted to his role in the con-
spiracy to distribute marijuana and consented to a search of his cell phone.
Investigators found text and WhatsApp5 messages between Appellant, JS, Kev,
and EJ regarding the group’s illegal plans. Within 24 hours, Appellant was
returned to duty at Keesler Air Force Base (AFB), Mississippi. Appellant con-
5 WhatsApp is a social media messaging application.
3
United States v. Williams, No. ACM 40028
sented to a urinalysis after arriving at Keeler AFB, and his urine tested posi-
tive for tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal psychoactive ingredient in mariju-
ana.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that his sentence is inappropriately severe given the
nature of his convicted offenses. Specifically, Appellant contends that the mil-
itary judge failed to consider Appellant’s “strong” rehabilitation potential. Ap-
pellant also argues that the convening authority’s denial of his request to waive
the automatic forfeitures for the benefit of his son makes his sentence inappro-
priately severe. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and find no relief
warranted.
A. Additional Background
During sentencing, the military judge considered Appellant’s convicted
misconduct and evidence presented by the Government, including testimony
from Appellant’s deployed commander, Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) MP. Lt Col
MP testified about the specific mission impacts caused by Appellant’s actions.
In particular, Lt Col MP highlighted the gap in manning caused by Appellant’s
redeployment and the one- to two-month delay for another military member to
fill Appellant’s billet. Furthermore, he explained that certain unit initiatives
were also not completed due to the personnel shortage caused by Appellant not
completing the deployment. The Government also presented Appellant’s prior
performance reports which were above average and unblemished.
The military judge also considered evidence presented by Appellant. This
included witness testimony from two field grade officers who opined that Ap-
pellant was a good worker, supportive father, and that he had positive rehabil-
itation potential. Appellant presented numerous positive character letters. Ad-
ditionally, Appellant provided an unsworn statement in which he took respon-
sibility for his actions, expressed remorse, and said he recognized that his ac-
tions warranted a dismissal.
B. Law
“We review sentence appropriateness de novo.” United States v. Datavs,
70
M.J. 595, 604 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2011) (citing United States v. Baier,
60 M.J.
382, 383–84 (C.A.A.F. 2005)), aff’d,
71 M.J. 420 (C.A.A.F. 2012). “We assess
sentence appropriateness by considering the particular appellant, the nature
and seriousness of the offense[s], the appellant’s record of service, and all mat-
ters contained in the record of trial.” United States v. Anderson,
67 M.J. 703,
705 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2009) (per curiam) (citations omitted). While we have
great discretion in determining whether a sentence is appropriate, we are not
4
United States v. Williams, No. ACM 40028
authorized to engage in exercises of clemency. United States v. Nerad,
69 M.J.
138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010).
C. Analysis
We have conducted a thorough review of Appellant’s entire court-martial
record, including his unsworn statement, officer performance reports, the tes-
timony of the Defense’s sentencing witnesses, and all materials submitted by
Appellant during sentencing and clemency. We conclude that the nature and
seriousness of the offenses clearly support the approved sentence. Here, Appel-
lant not only wrongfully used marijuana on two occasions while deployed, but
also was a key player in an international drug trafficking scheme. He caused
illegal drugs to be trafficked into a foreign country hosting United States mil-
itary personnel and had those drugs shipped to a secure military operations
facility. He then delivered the contraband to two individuals who planned to
distribute the drugs. Additionally, his actions had direct negative impacts on
his unit’s mission effectiveness.
Finally, we note that the adjudged sentence was just over half of what Ap-
pellant bargained for with the convening authority, and that Appellant has not
cited any legal authority to support his contention that his sentence is inap-
propriately severe. Appellant’s argument relies on matters previously consid-
ered by both the military judge during sentencing, and the convening authority
during clemency. “While these matters are appropriate considerations in clem-
ency, they do not show that the [A]ppellant’s sentence is inappropriately se-
vere.” United States v. Aguilar,
70 M.J. 563, 567 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2011).
We find Appellant’s recitation of these prior arguments devoid of any rationale
for inappropriateness as a matter of law, and another attempt at clemency,
which is not an authorized function of this court. See Nerad, 69 M.J. at 146.
Understanding we have a statutory responsibility to affirm only so much of the
sentence that is correct and should be approved, Article 66(d), UCMJ,
10
U.S.C. § 866(d), we conclude that the sentence is not inappropriately severe
and we affirm the sentence.
III. CONCLUSION
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).
5
United States v. Williams, No. ACM 40028
Accordingly, the findings and the sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
6
