# United States v. Reed

> Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces · August 31, 2000 · 54 M.J. 37

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9836750

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Rockey J. REED, Captain, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
- **Decided:** August 31, 2000
- **Citations:** 54 M.J. 37; 2000 CAAF LEXIS 956; 2000 WL 1239494
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Crawford, Sullivan, Cox
- **Cited by:** 499 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by United States v. Dawson, 65 M.J. 848 (2007).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9836750

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding “nothing in the opinion that would lead one to conclude that the lower court did not give . . . appellant’s assignment[] of error careful consideration”
- finding “nothing in the opinion that would lead one to conclude that the lower court did not give ... appellant’s assignment ] of error careful consideration”
- explaining that both factual and legal sufficiency in contested courts-martial cases are measured against the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard
- stating matters not introduced at trial are outside the record and may not be considered for factual or legal sufficiency on appeal

## Opinion text

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring):
With regard to Issue III, I agree with the majority but wish to note that I remain convinced that a new option should be added to the list of possible punishments that a court-martial may consider — a discharge with no or partial loss of retirement benefits. This new punishment option would allow better and more flexible justice in our military justice system. See, e.g., United States v. Sumrall, 45 MJ 207 , 211 n. 3 (1996); see 45 *46 MJ 211A and 211B (appendix to Sullivan, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9836750. Public record. Not legal advice.