Indeed, the consent was not limited to the final statement itself, but related to all the facts previously discussed concerning the appellant’s conduct with MW. While the appellant never actually disclosed this information to the respective families, that is not controlling. It is clear the appellant no longer intended that the matter be private. The approved findings and the sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), UCMJ; United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324, 325 (C.M.A.1987). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. * Questions about whether Mil. R. Evid. 611(d)(3) passes constitutional muster under Craig are intriguing. See United States v. Garcia, 7 F.3d 885 (9 Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>)', Major Edward J. O’Brien, USA, Are Courts
holding that in relation to is an element of 18 usc  924c holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc  3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release  unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc  3583d holding 18 usc  3509 is constitutional if read in conjunction with craig holding for the purposes of 18 usc  924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc  924e2b