Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0502-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carlos MANSILLA, also known as Los, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-4247-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 23, 2011.
    Randall D. Unger, Esq., Bayside, NY, for Appellant.
    Sarah R. Krissoff, Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    
      PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Carlos Mansilla, who stands convicted after a guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and two counts of drug distribution, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(C), appeals his prison sentence on the ground of procedural error in the application of an obstruction enhancement, see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, to the calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm on the ground of true waiver.

“The law is well established that if, as a tactical matter, a party raises no objection to a purported error, such inaction constitutes a true waiver which will negate even plain error review.” United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 321 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A finding of “true waiver” applies with even more force when a defendant not only failed to object to what he now describes as error, but actively solicited it in order to procure a perceived sentencing benefit. Id.

This is such a case. In a letter to the district court seeking a below-Guidelines sentence, Mansilla, through counsel, not only failed to object to the application of an obstruction enhancement, but also conceded the enhancement and professed to recognize the error in his submission of a false affirmation that was the basis for the enhancement. Moreover, at multiple points in the sentencing proceeding, Man-silla’s counsel expressly reiterated that Mansilla was not objecting to the obstruction enhancement or seeking a hearing. These actions reflect a “tactical decision” to avoid further hearings regarding false statements and to argue for a lower sentence on other grounds. Id. at 321. Indeed, the tactic allowed Mansilla to secure the government’s consent to his receipt of a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility notwithstanding his obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. 4 (noting that conduct resulting in obstruction enhancement “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct”). The district court granted this reduction, stating that “somebody can obstruct justice and then see the err[or] of [his] ways and subsequently accept responsibility.” Sentencing Tr. at 11. Its 78-month sentence was at the low end of the 78-to-97-month Guidelines range achieved through the tactical waiver.

Under these circumstances, Mansilla’s challenge is clearly waived. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 
      
      . Though we need not reach the issue, we identify no clear error in the court’s finding that the obstruction of justice enhancement was warranted. See United States v. Lince-cum, 220 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2000); United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307, 329 (2d Cir.1997).