Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. As used in the preceding sentence, the term “crimes and offenses not capital” includes any conduct engaged in outside the United States, as defined in section 5 of title 18, that would constitute a crime or offense not capital if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in section 7 of title 18.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Fosler (2011)
armfor · cites it 6×
“To establish a violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the accused engaged in certain conduct and that the conduct satisfied at least one of three listed criteria.”
United States v. Quiroz (2001)
armfor · cites it 5×
“5 pounds of M112 demolition charge [C-4]): (1) conspiracy to wrongfully dispose of the property, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 USC § 881 ; (2) wrongful sale of the property, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ, 10 USC § 908 ; (3)…”
United States v. Wheeler (2017)
afcca · cites it 3×
“The latter offense was charged under clause 3 of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 . The adjudged sentence was a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 30 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-l.”
United States v. Winckelmann (2013)
armfor · cites it 3×
“3 First, did the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals abuse its discretion by 1 Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2012). 2 United States v.”
United States v. Medina (2008)
armfor · cites it 4×
“Pursuant to his pleas, Appellant was convicted by general court-martial before a military judge of three specifications of possessing and transporting child pornography and coercing a minor to produce child pornography in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military…”
United States v. Jones (2010)
armfor · cites it 4×
“The military judge sua sponte instructed on, and the members convicted Appellant of, an uncharged violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006) -- indecent acts with another (indecent acts), presented as a lesser included offense (LIO).”
United States v. Martinelli (2005)
armfor · cites it 5×
“4 Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2000). 5 See United States v.”
United States v. Rapert (2016)
armfor · cites it 4×
“1 Appellant was charged with communicating a threat against the President of the United States in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2012). Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was 1 Senior Judge Royce C.”
United States v. Warner (2013)
armfor · cites it 6×
“Appellant was convicted, inter alia, of possessing images “that depict minors as sexual objects or in a sexually suggestive way,” in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2012). We granted review to determine (1) whether Appellant…”
United States v. Ashby (2009)
armfor · cites it 4×
“In analyzing this issue, we consider the elements of Article 133, UCMJ, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, as well as the elements of the underlying offenses, Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2000), obstruction of justice and Article 81, UCMJ, 10 U.”
United States v. Vaughan (2003)
armfor · cites it 4×
“754 , 755-56 (1974)(noting that Levy could not challenge the vagueness of Article 134 Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2002), as “hypothetically applied to the conduct of others”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.