Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01416/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01416-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Manzano-Huerta
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1416

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Juan Carlos Manzano-Huerta

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: September 25, 2015

 Filed: January 4, 2016

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Juan Carlos Manzano-Huerta (“Manzano”) pleaded guilty to harboring,

encouraging, and inducing an alien to reside in the United States, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B)(ii), and conspiracy to transport, harbor, and

encourage and induce aliens to reside in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I). The district court sentenced himto 33 months’ imprisonment. 1

Manzano now appeals. He argues that his sentence should be vacated and his case

remanded for resentencing because the Government breached the terms of his plea

agreement. He also argues that the district court erred when it denied a three-level

sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1 and

instead applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under

USSG § 3C1.1. We affirm.

I.

Manzano was the organizer, manager, and sole owner of Manzano Grain Bin

Services, LLC (“MGBS”), a company that erected grain binsfor commercial and farm

use throughout the Midwest. At its peak, MGBS employed about thirty workers who

were divided into different crewsto performwork at variousjob sites. Different crew

chiefs headed each crew, and Manzano told these chiefs where to assemble the bins

and when to begin construction. In order to make sure that their work was

satisfactory, Manzano often was present when his crews began construction and

always was present when they ended construction. He also issued the equipment and

vehicles to all crews and provided them with lodging and extra cash when they

worked outside of a local area.

In August 2013, one of Manzano’s crew chiefs, Ramon Perez, was arrested in

Fayette County, Iowa for first-degree kidnapping and sexual abuse of a child. As part

of an investigation into Perez, Homeland Security Investigations Special AgentChris

Cantrell met with Manzano. Shortly after this meeting, Cantrell began investigating

Manzano for employing undocumented immigrants. Cantrell discovered that most

of the men working for Manzano were immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
Mexico. Manzano hired these workers without requiring I-9 forms, and he knew that

at least some of the workers had entered the United States illegally. Following

Cantrell’s investigation, Manzano pleaded guilty to harboring and conspiring to

harbor aliens.

At Manzano’s sentencing hearing, the Government sought a two-level

enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to USSG § 3C1.1. The Government

claimed that Manzano had provided materially false information to law enforcement

during his August 2013 meeting with Agent Cantrell when Manzano stated that Perez

was a subcontractor, instead of an employee, and was responsible for hiring his own

workers. The Government also contended that Manzano tried to influence Perez to

corroborate this false statement a month later during a recorded phone call. 

Manzano objected to the enhancement, claiming that the Government violated

the plea agreement during the sentencing hearing by offering evidence of his

statements to Cantrell and Perez. Specifically, Manzano pointed to a factual

stipulation in the plea agreement stating that Manzano “believed he could pay the

workers and crew chiefs as independent contractors and did not withhold taxes from

their pay.” Manzano argued that the Government was contradicting the stipulation

by asserting that his claimthat the workers were subcontractors was a false statement,

even though the Government stipulated that Manzano honestly believed that the

statement was true. 

Manzano further argued that he merely reported to Perez the statement that he

had made to Cantrell but never ordered Perez to corroborate this statement. The

record contains three different transcripts of the recorded phone call, one each from

Manzano, Perez, and a Government transcriber. Perez submitted his transcript in

Spanish. The Government and Manzano submitted transcriptstranslated into English. 

The Government’s and Manzano’s transcripts included the following exchange: 

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
Manzano: I said you were a subcontractor and . . . that I gave you the

jobs on contract and you would finish all of them.

Perez: Oh, yes, yes, if they ask me something, well, if not, I won’t

say anything.

Manzano: Uh-huh, okay! 

***

Manzano: That’s good . . . that’s what I said.

Perez: Uh-huh!

***

Manzano: I told him/her that you got your own workers.

Perez: Yes, yes, yes, I’m going to do it.

Manzano: That’s good.

Although Manzano’s and the Government’s transcripts are consistent, Perez’s

transcript differs as to the last segment of the conversation quoted above. Perez’s

transcript states—and Perez later testified—that Manzano urged him to “Tell [the

investigator] that you got your own workers.” However, both Manzano and the

Government’s translator interpreted thissentence as “I told himthat you got your own

workers.” The district court credited Perez’s testimony. Given the context of the

2

statements, the district court found that Manzano was attempting to convince Perez

to corroborate Manzano’s statement to Cantrell that Perez, not Manzano, was

responsible for harboring illegal aliens. 

The district court applied the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The court

held that “[t]he defendant, in an attempt to shield himself from criminal liability,

attempted to convince authorities that he did not knowingly hire or employ or harbor

illegal aliens.” The district court also denied Manzano an acceptance-ofresponsibility adjustment because Manzano falsely denied that he had obstructed

justice. After calculating an advisory sentencing guidelinesrange of 33 to 41 months’

The different translations turned on whether one word in the transcripts was 2

“dile,” as heard by Perez, or “dije,” as interpreted in the other transcripts.

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
imprisonment, the district court sentenced him to 33 months’ imprisonment, with 3

years’ supervised release, and ordered him to pay a fine of $3,200.

II.

Manzano presents two challenges on appeal. First, he argues that we should

vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing because the Government breached

the plea agreement by soliciting testimony at his sentencing hearing to demonstrate

that he lied about his relationship with his workers to Agent Cantrell and encouraged

a witness, Perez, to do the same. Second, Manzano argues that the district court erred

in assessing a guidelines enhancement for obstruction of justice and denying a

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. 

A.

We review de novo questions regarding the interpretation and enforcement of

plea agreements. United States v. Noriega, 760 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2014). “Plea

agreements are contractual in nature, and are interpreted according to general contract

principles.” Margalli-Olvera v. INS, 43 F.3d 345, 351 (8th Cir. 1994). 

The parties dispute the interpretation of one sentence in the plea agreement’s

stipulation of facts, which states that “Defendant believed he could pay the workers

and crew chiefs as independent contractors and did not withhold taxes from their

pay.” Manzano argues that if he believed he could pay his workers assubcontractors,

then he must have believed that the workers were subcontractors. Therefore,

Manzano claims, he could not have obstructed justice by attempting to convince law

enforcement officers of that belief. According to Manzano, by presenting these

statements as “lies,” the Government contradicted this stipulation and thus breached

the plea agreement. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
We disagree. Instead, we read the agreement asstipulating only that Manzano

believed that his method of paying the workers as subcontractors was proper. We

interpret plea agreements according to their plain language. Noriega, 760 F.3d at 911

(rejecting defendant’s claim that the Government breached a plea agreement because

defendant’s argument “impermissibly seeks to expand the . . . stipulation to bind the

Government . . . in a manner not supported by the plain meaning of the plea

agreement’s text”). And the plain language of the plea agreement makes clear that

the stipulation only relates to Manzano’s belief that he could pay his workers as

subcontractors. Moreover, Manzano’s proposed interpretation is inconsistent with

other stipulations in the plea agreement, which indicate that Manzano’s relationship

with his workers was much more involved than the typical relationship between a

contractor and his subcontractors. In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that

Manzano provided the workers with vehicles, equipment, tools, and other materials,

and that Manzano told the workers when and where to assemble the grain bins. These

actions are consistent with those of an employer. See, e.g., Louismet v. Bielema, 457

N.W.2d 10, 12-13 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (holding that workers were employees under

Iowa law after finding, inter alia, that the employer “furnished the place to work and

provided the workers with tools and equipment to use”). Under this narrow reading

of the stipulation, the Government did not breach the plea agreement because it did

not allege that Manzano obstructed justice by stating that he believed that he could

pay his workers as subcontractors.

Even if we adopted Manzano’s broad reading of the stipulation, we still would

hold that the Government did not breach the plea agreement. The Government did

not pursue the obstruction enhancement based on Manzano’s classification of the

workers assubcontractors rather than employees. Instead, the Government sought the

enhancement under the theory that Manzano had attempted to shift blame onto Perez

by suggesting that Perez, not Manzano, was responsible for harboring the illegal

aliens. The Government claimed—and the district court found—that Manzano was

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
not truthful when he told Agent Cantrell that Perez was responsible for hiring and

paying his own workers. Other parts of Manzano’s plea agreement demonstrate that

these statements were false: Manzano stipulated that he was responsible for paying

the workers and had directed Perez to recruit workers for MGBS. The Government

thus established that Manzano obstructed justice when he misled law enforcement by

minimizing his role in hiring and paying illegal aliens to work for his company. The

Government’s pursuit ofthe enhancement was not inconsistent with Manzano’s broad

reading of the stipulation as asserting that Manzano believed the workers were

subcontractors.

B.

We next turn to Manzano’s claim that the district court erred in calculating his

advisory sentencing guidelines range. Manzano argues that the district court erred

when it applied an enhancement for obstruction of justice after finding that Manzano

lied to Agent Cantrell and encouraged Perez to corroborate this lie. “The district

court must find the predicate facts supporting an enhancement for obstruction of

justice by a preponderance of the evidence, and we review those findings for clear

error.” United States v. Yarrington, 634 F.3d 440, 452 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting

United States v. Montes-Medina, 570 F.3d 1052, 1061 (8th Cir. 2009). 

Manzano first claims that his statements to Cantrell and Perez were not

obstructive because, as stated in the plea agreement’s stipulation, Manzano actually

believed that the workers were subcontractors rather than employees. For the reasons

explained above, we reject both Manzano’s broad reading of the stipulation and his

argument that the Government pursued the obstruction enhancement based on

Manzano’s classification of the workers as subcontractors.

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
Second, Manzano argues that the district court erred in relying on Perez’s

transcript and translation of their recorded phone call instead of crediting the

transcripts from Manzano and the Government. The district court’s assessment of

witness credibility is “quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on

appeal.” United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 938 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting

United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 2003)). We find no clear error

in the district court’s credibility determination. Manzano began the phone call by

stating that he was worried about being investigated for hiring illegal immigrants, and

he spent the rest of the brief conversation reiterating that he had told Cantrell that

Perez was a subcontractor responsible for hiring his own workers. Each time

Manzano recited the story he had told Cantrell, Perez assured himthat his storywould

be consistent with Manzano’s; and each time Perez reassured him, Manzano

responded positively. When viewed in their entirety, Manzano’s statements to

Perez—and his reactions to Perez agreeing to corroborate his story—demonstrate that

Manzano encouraged Perez to lie.

Third, Manzano claims that his statements to Cantrell did not constitute

obstruction of justice because the statements did not impede the investigation. See

United States v. Williams, 288 F.3d 1079, 1081 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that false

statements to law enforcement are not obstructive unless the Government provides

evidence that the conduct hindered its investigation). According to Manzano, he did

not impede the investigation because he truthfully described his relationship with the

workers such that it was obvious to Agent Cantrell that Manzano had hired the

workers as his employees. However, Manzano’s false statements did impede the

investigation because law enforcement officers had to obtain additional evidence to

contradict these statements and prove that Manzano illegally harbored aliens. 

Officers obtained phone calls between Manzano and Perez, seized 1099 forms during

a search of Manzano’s residence, and presented witnesses to testify in two hearings

regarding Manzano’s employment and transportation of some of his workers. See

-8-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645 
United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908, 914 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that

obstruction-of-justice enhancement was warranted where defendant’s false statement

delayed investigation for eight days and caused law enforcement to expend

unnecessary resources). 

Having found that Manzano obstructed justice, the district court did not clearly

err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1. 

United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416, 425 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing for clear error

the district court’s determination that the defendant accepted responsibility). 

“Conduct resulting in an enhancement [for obstruction of justice] ordinarily indicates

that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” USSG

§ 3E1.1 cmt. 4. Although in “extraordinary cases” a court may apply an acceptanceof-responsibility adjustment despite finding that the defendant obstructed justice,

Manzano’s eventual cooperation with law enforcement does not warrant such

treatment here. See United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968 (8th Cir. 1999). The

district court noted that Manzano’s obstructive conduct “was not an isolated instance,

in that this conduct continued, and, actually, hasn’t even ceased as of this day because

this defendant . . . continues to deny that he obstructed justice.” Given this conduct,

the district court found that Manzano’s willingness to agree to a plea deal was not

sufficient to warrant an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See id. at 970. 

III.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________

-9-

Appellate Case: 15-1416 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/04/2016 Entry ID: 4351645