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

                             No. ACM S32458
                          ________________________

                            UNITED STATES
                                Appellee
                                      v.
                        Keidrick B. OWENS
          Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                          ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                           Decided 16 May 2018
                          ________________________

Military Judge: Joseph S. Imburgia.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months,
reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. Sentence adjudged 25 January
2017 by SpCM convened at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
For Appellant: Major Jarett F. Merk, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; 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    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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-
                   United States v. Owens, No. ACM S32458


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




* We note that the court-martial order (CMO) of 13 March 2017 contains two errors.
First, Specification 3 is missing the language “unlawfully grab [DS’s] neck with his
hand and.” Second, the CMO indicates that Appellant was found not guilty of Charge
II when in fact Charge II was withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice in accordance
with the terms of the pretrial agreement. We find no prejudice, but order the promul-
gation of a corrected CMO.




                                         2
