U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM S32767
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Nathaniel E. NAKKEN
Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 10 October 2024
________________________
Military Judge: Charles G. Warren.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 31 May 2023 by SpCM convened at Offutt
Air Force Base, Nebraska. Sentence entered by military judge on
26 July 2023: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 5 months, reduc-
tion to E-1, and a reprimand.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jarett Merk, USAF; Major Samantha
P. Golseth, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel J. Pete Ferrell, USAF; Major Regina
Henenlotter, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Mary Ellen
Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, GRUEN, and DOUGLAS, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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:
The findings are correct in law, and the sentence is correct in law and fact,
and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant oc-
curred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10
United States v. Nakken, No. ACM S32767
U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d) (Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.)).*
Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
* Although not raised by Appellant, we note the period between Appellant’s sentencing
on 31 May 2023 and the date the case was docketed with this court on 8 January 2024
exceeded 150 days. See United States v. Livak,
80 M.J. 631, 633 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.
2020) (establishing an aggregate sentence-to-docketing 150-day threshold for facially
unreasonable delay in cases, like Appellant’s, that were referred to trial on or after 1
January 2019). While we do not find this period of delay de minimis, after fully consid-
ering the record of trial and applicable case law, we conclude no relief is warranted.
See, e.g., United States v. Toohey,
63 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Moreno,
63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.); United States v. Gay,
74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015),
aff’d,
75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
2
