U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM S32538 (f rev)
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Cory RAMIREZ
Airman (E-2), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Upon Further Review
Decided 19 October 2022
________________________
Military Judge: Matthew D. Talcott.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 3 months,
forfeiture of $1,092.00 pay per month for 3 months, and reduction to E-
1. Sentence adjudged 22 March 2018 by SpCM convened at Joint Base
San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
For Appellant: Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Major Rodrigo M. Caruço,
USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Alford, USAF; Lieutenant
Colonel Brian C. Mason, USAF; Major John P. Patera, USAF; Captain
Kelsey B. Shust, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, POSCH, and KEY, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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 this court for a third time. A military judge found
Appellant guilty, in accordance with his pleas, of one specification of
United States v. Ramirez, No. ACM S32538 (f rev)
wrongfully using marijuana on divers occasions and one specification of wrong-
fully introducing marijuana onto a military installation, both in violation of
Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a.1 A
special court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members found Appel-
lant not guilty, in accordance with his pleas, of one specification of wrongful
use of psilocybin in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, but guilty of the lesser-
included offense of attempted wrongful use of psilocybin in violation of Article
80, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 880.2 The court-martial sentenced Appellant to a bad-
conduct discharge, confinement for three months, forfeiture of $1,092.00 pay
per month for three months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening
authority approved the adjudged sentence.
In his initial appeal to this court, Appellant raised a single issue: whether
his conviction for attempted use of psilocybin is factually sufficient. We found
Appellant’s conviction legally and factually sufficient, but returned the record
for a new post-trial process and action due to an error in the convening author-
ity’s action. United States v. Ramirez, No. ACM S32538,
2020 CCA LEXIS 20
(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 24 Jan. 2020) (unpub. op.).
After the record of trial was redocketed with this court on 29 April 2020,
Appellant submitted the case for our review without further assignments of
error. However, upon review we determined, and the Government conceded,
that the new post-trial processing was incomplete. Accordingly, we set aside
the new convening authority action and returned the record for a new and com-
plete post-trial process and action. United States v. Ramirez, No. ACM S32538
(f rev),
2020 CCA LEXIS 367 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Oct. 2020) (order).
The convening authority again approved the sentence on 20 July 2021. The
record of trial was redocketed with this court on 15 September 2021.3 On 9
1 All references in this opinion to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are to
the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.).
2 The court members found Appellant not guilty of one specification of absenting him-
self from his place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 886.
3 We note the 57 days that elapsed between the convening authority’s action and re-
docketing with this court exceeded the 30-day threshold for a facially unreasonable
delay under United States v. Moreno,
63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). However, Ap-
pellant has not claimed error or requested relief for excessive post-trial delay. Appel-
lant has not asserted cognizable prejudice from the delay, and we perceive none. See
id. at 138–40 (citations omitted). Under the particular circumstances of this case, we
find any facially unreasonable delay was not so egregious as to “adversely affect the
public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of the military justice system,” and
therefore find no due process violation. United States v. Toohey,
63 M.J. 353, 362
2
United States v. Ramirez, No. ACM S32538 (f rev)
September 2022, after receiving nine enlargements of time, Appellant submit-
ted a brief to this court raising a new assignment of error: whether Appellant
was denied his right to a unanimous verdict as guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment,4 the Fifth Amendment5 Due Process Clause, and the Fifth
Amendment right to equal protection.
This court addressed a similar assignment of error in United States v. An-
derson, No. ACM 39969,
2022 CCA LEXIS 181, at *50–57 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.
25 Mar. 2022) (unpub. op.), rev. granted, ___ M.J. ___,
2022 CAAF LEXIS 529
(C.A.A.F. 25 Jul. 2022). For the reasons set forth in Anderson, we conclude
Appellant did not have a Fifth Amendment or Sixth Amendment right to a
unanimous verdict, and we find Appellant’s assignment of error does not re-
quire further discussion or warrant relief. See United States v. Matias,
25 M.J.
356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987).
The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
ror materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Arti-
cles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the find-
ings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
(C.A.A.F. 2006). We have also determined relief for excessive post-trial delay in the
absence of a due process violation is not warranted. See United States v. Tardif,
57
M.J. 219, 225 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. Gay,
74 M.J. 736, 742 (A.F. Ct. Crim.
App. 2015), aff’d,
75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
4 U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
5 U.S. CONST. amend. V.
3
