               U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
              C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                            ________________________

                                    No. ACM S32485
                            ________________________

                               UNITED STATES
                                   Appellee
                                          v.
                          Caleb N. LAWSON
              Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                            ________________________

         Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                             Decided 21 June 2018
                            ________________________

Military Judge: Andrew Kalavanos.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 3 months,
and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 30 June 2017 by SpCM con-
vened at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
For Appellant: Major Allen S. Abrams, USAF.
For Appellee: Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, MINK, and DENNIS, Appellate Military Judges.
                            ________________________

    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
                       ________________________


PER CURIAM:
   The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. * Arti-


* The staff judge advocate’s recommendation to the convening authority erroneously
stated the maximum imposable punishment included, inter alia, forfeiture of two-
(Footnote continues on next page)
                   United States v. Lawson, No. ACM S32485


cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a),
866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.


                  FOR THE COURT



                  CAROL K. JOYCE
                  Clerk of the Court




thirds of Appellant’s pay per month for 12 months and a fine. See Rules for Courts-
Martial 201(f)(2)(B)(i), 1003(b)(3); United States v. Books, No. ACM S32369, 2017
CCA LEXIS 226, at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 31 Mar. 2017) (unpub. op.). However, Ap-
pellant has not asserted and we do not find any colorable showing of possible preju-
dice from the error under the facts of this case. See United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63,
65 (C.A.A.F. 2000).




                                          2
