U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 23034
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Andrew V. LAWSON
Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary1
Decided 17 October 2024
________________________
Military Judge: Mark F. Rosenow.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 3 February 2023 by SpCM convened at Lit-
tle Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Sentence entered by military judge
on 3 March 2023: Confinement for 2 months, forfeiture of $200.00 pay
per month for 12 months, and reduction to E-1.
For Appellant: Major Spencer R. Nelson, USAF.
For Appellee: Colonel Matthew D. Talcott, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel J.
Peter Ferrell, USAF; Major Vanessa Bairos, USAF; Captain Tyler L.
Washburn, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before RICHARDSON, MASON, and KEARLEY, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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.
1 Appellant appeals his conviction under Article 66(b)(1)(A), Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. § 866(b)(1)(A), pursuant to the National Defense Authori-
zation Act for Fiscal Year 2023,
Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 544,
136 Stat. 2395, 2582–84
(23 Dec. 2022).
United States v. Lawson, No. ACM 23034
________________________
PER CURIAM:
A special court-martial composed of a panel of officer and enlisted members
found Appellant guilty, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of wrongful
possession of Schedule I controlled substances and two specifications of wrong-
ful introduction of Schedule I controlled substances, in violation of Article
112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a; 2,3 one spec-
ification of unlawful entry, in violation of Article 129, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 929;
and one specification of disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 934.4,5 The members sentenced Appellant to two months’ confine-
ment, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 12 months, and reduction to the
grade of E-1. The convening authority took no action on the findings or sen-
tence.
Appellant personally raises two issues on appeal which we have rephrased:
(1) whether the Government can prove the
18 U.S.C. § 922 firearms prohibition
is constitutional as applied to Appellant and whether this court has jurisdic-
tion to decide that issue; (2) whether the Air Force Office of Special Investiga-
tions committed prejudicial misconduct in its investigation of Appellant.6
We have carefully considered issue (1) and conclude it warrants neither
discussion nor relief. See United States v. Matias,
25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A.
1987); United States v. Vanzant,
84 M.J. 671, 680–81 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2024)
2 All references to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019
ed.) .
3 All four specifications were part of Charge I. Appellant was found guilty of wrongful
introduction of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (Specification 4) and of psilocybin
(Specification 5). Appellant also was found guilty of wrongful possession of LSD and
psilocybin (Specifications 1 and 2). The military judge “conditionally set aside” the
findings of guilty to the possession specifications and “conditionally dismissed [them]
without prejudice” if the introduction specifications “surviv[ed] the completion of ap-
pellate review.” The military judge merged the two LSD specifications and merged the
two psilocybin specifications for sentencing.
4 The military judge “conditionally set aside” the findings of guilty to the disorderly
conduct specification and charge and “conditionally dismissed [them] with prejudice”
if the unlawful entry specification and charge “surviv[ed] the completion of appellate
review.” Also, the military judge merged these specifications with each other for sen-
tencing.
5 Appellant was acquitted of one specification each of wrongful possession and wrongful
introduction of a controlled substance (marijuana).
6 Appellant raises both issues pursuant to United States v. Grostefon,
12 M.J. 431
(C.M.A. 1982).
2
United States v. Lawson, No. ACM 23034
(holding the
18 U.S.C. § 922 firearm prohibition notation included in the staff
judge advocate’s indorsement to the entry of judgment is beyond a Court of
Criminal Appeals’ statutory authority to review).
We also have carefully considered issue (2) and find it also does not require
discussion or relief. See Matias,
25 M.J. at 361.
The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the findings
and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
3
