         U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS
                        _________________________

                            No. 201600109
                        _________________________

                UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                Appellee
                                    v.

                     MARK A. TAMBURELLO
               Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps
                              Appellant
                       _________________________

 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

       Military Judge: Major Michael D. Zimmerman, USMC.
         For Appellant: Major Benjamin A. Robles, USMC.
  For Appellee: Lieutenant Taurean K. Brown, JAGC, USN; Major
                      Cory A. Carver, USMC.
                      _________________________

                      Decided 17 November 2016
                       _________________________

Before C AMPBELL , R UGH , and HUTCHISON, Appellate Military Judges
                      _________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited
as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Practice and
Procedure 18.2.
                     _________________________

PER CURIAM:
   At a contested general court-martial, officer and enlisted members
convicted the appellant of a sexual assault in violation of Article 120,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012). The members
sentenced the appellant to six months’ confinement, reduction to pay grade
E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the
sentence as adjudged.
   In the sole assignment of error, the appellant avers that the military
judge erred in the findings instructions. Without objection at trial, the
military judge instructed the members, in part, “If, based on your
consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the accused is
guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty.” Record at 221, 548. We
found no error in the use of the same challenged reasonable doubt instruction
in United States v. Rendon, __ M.J. __, No. 201500408, 2016 CCA LEXIS 643,
at *26 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1 Nov 2016), and in accordance with that
holding, we summarily reject the appellant’s assignment of error here. United
States v. Clifton, 35 M.J. 79 (C.M.A. 1992).
   The findings and sentence are affirmed.
                                      For the Court


                                      R.H. TROIDL
                                      Clerk of Court




                                      2
