Senior Airman Brennen J. Patterson served in the U.S. Air Force and stood before a general court-martial convened at Joint Base San Antonio–Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The military judge accepted Patterson’s plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one specification of illegal transportation of an alien within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) as assimilated under Article 134, UCMJ. The judge sentenced Patterson to a bad-conduct discharge, three months’ confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority took no action on the findings but suspended the forfeitures and waived certain automatic forfeitures.

Patterson’s plea agreement withdrew and dismissed with prejudice additional charges, including conspiracy and carrying a handgun during criminal activity. Patterson raised seven issues on appeal:

1. Whether the court-martial lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

On Jan. 28, 2026, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) issued its decision in United States v. Poller, affirming both the findings and sentence imposed at general court-martial for Hos- pital Corpsman Third Class (E-4) Chase R. Poller. Poller pleaded guilty to multiple violations of Article 134, UCMJ — specifically receiving, possessing, distributing, and producing child pornography — with a resulting sentence of reduction to E-1, 17 years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. On appeal, Poller challenged only the severity of the confinement portion of his sentence, arguing for reduction to 12 years. The appellate court rejected the claim and affirmed the findings and sentence as both lawful and correct.

While the NMCCA’s published decision is brief and does not delve into fact patterns in detail, it underscores core appellate standards under the UCMJ — particularly the principles that govern sentencing review and the limited scope of sentence appropriateness arguments in the absence of reversible legal error. This case highlights key concepts every military justice practitioner must understand.

Appellate Standards & Sentence Appropriateness

In United States v. Taylor, NMCCA No. 202400313, the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) delivered a clear message about the limits of circumstantial evidence in child pornography prosecutions when the Government fails to connect digital evidence to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Decided 29 January 2026, this unpublished opinion confronts core military justice issues involving digital forensic evidence, factual sufficiency, proper evidentiary findings, and protecting constitutional rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Our team at Cave & Freeburg has repeatedly seen how complex digital evidence cases can devolve into prosecutorial overreach when the Government substitutes inference for proof. The Taylor opinion exemplifies this problem—and more importantly, shows how appellate review should function as a check against convictions unsupported by the evidentiary record.

Case Synopsis: Facts Without Forensic Connection

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent decision in United States v. Tennyson underscores a reality that senior enlisted members and officers cannot afford to ignore: sexual-harassment allegations under Article 92, UCMJ, often turn on regulatory language, not common-law instincts about severity or harm. The case also illustrates why early, experienced defense representation matters when commands rely on broad policy orders rather than traditional punitive articles.

The Case at a Glance

Gunnery Sergeant Eric Tennyson faced a special court-martial for alleged violations of Article 92, UCMJ, based on Marine Corps Order 5354.1E, the Prohibited Activities and Conduct (PAC) Order. The Government charged him with three specifications of sexual harassment arising from separate workplace incidents during his check-in to a new command in October 2020. The military judge, sitting alone, convicted him of two specifications and acquitted him of a third. The adjudged and approved sentence consisted of a reprimand.

When a Marine Gunnery Sergeant faced a life-altering court-martial at Quantico, the prosecution alleged dereliction of duty leading to death arising from an incident during an Africa deployment. The charge carried severe criminal exposure and the very real prospect of a destroyed career, lost retirement, and permanent stigma. The stakes were as high as they come in military justice.

Cave & Freeburg, LLP stepped in. What followed was a model of meticulous investigation, disciplined pretrial litigation, and aggressive courtroom advocacy—culminating in a full acquittal and the restoration of a Marine’s reputation.

Background: The Government’s Theory

1. Charges and Sentence

Charge and Specification

• Appellant, Private First Class Avery L. Rosario, U.S. Marine Corps, pleaded guilty to:

If you are on active duty and married to an undocumented “alien,” you have two concerns (1) how to get your spouse “legal,” and (2) avoiding disciplinary action.

Your Legal Jeopardy

Service members often ask whether marrying or living with an undocumented spouse exposes them to court-martial. The short answer is yes, in limited and fact-specific circumstances—but the risk most often arises from paperwork and benefits errors, not from marriage itself.

1. Charges and Sentence

Charges/Specifications:

The appellant, Chief Hospital Corpsman (E-7) Marvin B. Guzman, U.S. Navy, was tried by general court-martial at Naval Base San Diego, California, and convicted by members with enlisted representation of: