CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic

U.S. v. Promin, 54 M.J. 467

Decided Apr 25, 2001 · No. 00-0227/NA · 2001 Term · Opinion (PDF)

Digested under 2 topics

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Former Jeopardy

  1. nether the Double Jeopardy Clause nor Article 44, UCMJ, prohibits the forfeiture of pay and allowances imposed by operation of Article 58b, UCMJ; cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where the punishment prescribed is no greater than the legislature intended
  2. automatic forfeiture of pay and allowances under Article 58b, UCMJ, is not an instance of an individual being twice put in jeopardy; rather, there is but one proceeding, as a result of which an accused receives multiple punishments as authorized and intended by Congress

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Lawfulness of Sentence

  1. nether the Double Jeopardy Clause nor Article 44, UCMJ, prohibits the forfeiture of pay and allowances imposed by operation of Article 58b, UCMJ; cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where the punishment prescribed is no greater than the legislature intended
  2. automatic forfeiture of pay and allowances under Article 58b, UCMJ, is not an instance of an individual being twice put in jeopardy; rather, there is but one proceeding, as a result of which an accused receives multiple punishments as authorized and intended by Congress
Source and status

This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.

Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).