UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman NOBLE D. DUENAS

United States Air Force

ACM S32278

8 February 2016

Sentence adjudged 15 July 2014 by SPCM convened at Travis Air Force 

Base, California. Military Judge: Matthew P. Stoffel (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 2 months, 

fine of $10,000, and reduction to E-2.

Appellate Counsel for Appellant: Major Thomas A. Smith; Major Grover 

Baxley; and Captain Lauren A. Shure.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Roberto 

Ramirez and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ALLRED, MITCHELL, and MAYBERRY

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

ALLRED, Chief Judge:

In accordance with her pleas, Appellant was convicted of conspiracy, larceny, 

entering into a marriage to evade United States immigration laws, and making false or 

fraudulent statements or representations, in violation of Articles 81, 121, and 134, UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 921, 934. The special court-martial, composed of a military judge 

sitting alone, sentenced her to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for two months, to 

pay a fine of $10,000, and reduction to the grade of E-2.
2 ACM S32278

Appellant contends on appeal that her sentence is inappropriately severe.

1

 Finding 

no error materially prejudicial to a substantial right of Appellant, we affirm the findings 

and the sentence.

Background

Appellant is a United States citizen. In November 2009, she met Mr. Timothy 

Duenas, a Philippine national who was in the United States on a soon-to-expired tourist 

visa. Appellant and Mr. Duenas agreed that he would pay her $10,000 if she would enter 

into a sham marriage with him so that he could acquire legal residence in the United 

States.

In January 2010, Appellant and Mr. Duenas were married in California. However, 

they never lived together, nor did they ever consummate the marriage. Appellant knew 

the purpose of their marriage was to evade immigration laws and obtain legal residence in 

the United States to which Mr. Duenas was not entitled. Moreover, in addition to 

receiving the agreed $10,000 from Mr. Duenas, Appellant used their fake marriage to 

obtain military benefits to which she was not entitled. Between January 2010 and 

February 2014, she wrongfully obtained over $16,000 in Family Separation Allowance 

(FSA) and Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the with-dependent rate.

Further facts pertinent to Appellant’s assignment of error are addressed below.

Sentence Appropriateness

Citing her positive service record and the need to care for her child without the 

stigma of a punitive discharge, Appellant challenges the appropriateness of her sentence. 

This court reviews sentence appropriateness de novo. United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1, 2 

(C.A.A.F. 2006). We “may affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such 

part or amount of the sentence, as [we find] correct in law and fact and determine[], on 

the basis of the entire record, should be approved.” Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 

866(c). “We assess sentence appropriateness by considering the particular appellant, the 

nature and seriousness of the offense[s], the appellant’s record of service, and all matters 

contained in the record of trial.” United States v. Anderson, 67 M.J. 703, 705 (A.F. Ct. 

Crim. App. 2009) (citations omitted). Although we are accorded great discretion in 

determining whether a particular sentence is appropriate, we are not authorized to engage 

in exercises of clemency. United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010).

Appellant knowingly engaged in a course of criminal conduct spanning four years. 

In face-to-face interviews and written submissions, Appellant made numerous false 

statements to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). While 

pregnant, she claimed to USCIS that Mr. Duenas was the father of her child; and she 

 

1 This issue is raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A 1982).
3 ACM S32278

submitted ultrasound pictures to substantiate this point, when in fact she was carrying the 

child of her long-time boyfriend. In deceiving USCIS, she enriched herself by $10,000 

and obtained unauthorized residency for Mr. Duenas. Furthermore, she engaged in a 

four-year course of criminal conduct resulting in the fraudulent theft of more than 

$16,000 from the United States. 

Having fully considered this particular Appellant, the nature and seriousness of her 

offenses, her record of service, and all matters contained in the record of trial, we find the 

sentence appropriate.

Conclusion

The approved findings and the sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) 

and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and 

the sentence are

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

 LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court