
    UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Private E-1 Hunter J. ISRAEL, United States Army, Appellant.
    ARMY 20131054
    U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
    26 April 2016
    Headquarters, Fort Carson, Timothy Grammel, Military Judge, Lieutenant Colonel Stephanie D. Sanderson, Staff Judge Advocate.
    For Appellant: Captain Payum Doroodian, JA; Gregory M. Gagne, Esq (on brief).
    For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Syden-ham, JA; Major AG. Courie III, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain Samuel E. Landes, JA (on brief).
    Before HAIGHT, PENLAND, and WOLFE, Appellate Military Judges
   OPINION OF THE COURT UPON REMAND

WOLFE, Judge:

A general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of making a false official statement, one specification of sodomy with a child between the ages of 12 and 16 years, and two specifications of obstruction of justice, in violation of Articles 107, 125, and 134, 10 U.S.C. §§ 907, 925 and 934 (2006; 2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]! The panel sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for ten years, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence.

On 18 December 2015, we issued an opinion of the court in appellant’s case in which we affirmed appellant’s convictions for sodomy with a child and obstruction of justice, and additionally, we affirmed a single false official statement specification after concluding two separate convictions for statements made in a single interview “should be approved” only as a single offense. United States v. Israel, 2015 WL 9592486 (Army Ct.Crim.App.2015).

As our 18 December 2015 opinion was ambiguous as to the affirmed sentence, on 19 April 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) remanded appellant’s case to this court for “clarification of the affirmed sentence.”

The findings as affirmed in our 18 December 2015 opinion are again AFFIRMED. Israeli 2015 WL 9592486. We find the approved sentence is appropriate and is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in our 18 December 2015 decision. Id.

Appellant may now again petition the C.A.A.F. for review. See UCMJ arts. 67(a)(3) and (b)(1).

Senior Judge HAIGHT and Judge PENLAND concur. 
      
      . Appellant was acquitted of one specification of providing alcohol to a minor in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
     