Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02284/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02284-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ildefonso Marrufo-Ortiz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

Fl LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

OCT 12 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ILDEFONSO MARRUFO-ORTIZ, a/k/a ) 

Ruben Martinez, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

No. 89-2284 

(D.C. No. CR-88-229-JB-1) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and BROWN, 

District Judge.** 

Defendant Marrufo appeals his sentence on the ground that the 

district court erred in increasing the base offense level by two 

points for obstruction of justice. While we are uncertain of the 

basis for the sentence, there are circumstances related in the 

presentence investigation report which could lead to a finding 

that the defendant did indeed obstruct justice. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior Judge for the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2284 Document: 010110059602 Date Filed: 10/12/1990 Page: 1 
It is uncontroverted that defendant used an alias at the time 

of his arrest. What is unknown from this record is whether and to 

what extent the use of the alias mislead or deceived the 

government in the course of this proceeding. It is also 

uncontroverted that defendant was mistakenly released from custody 

because his alias corresponded to the name of one who was properly 

to be released. Whether this was happenstance or contrived by the 

defendant is undisclosed. 

It is true that defendant did not specifically controvert any 

fact asserted in the presentence investigation report; however, he 

did argue the two point adjustment was inapplicable and improper 

for various reasons. He therefore put into issue whether there 

were facts which could lead the court to apply the adjustment. 

That dispute is sufficient to call for a determination of facts 

and a need to make findings in accordance with Guideline 

§ 6Al.3(a). Moreover, without an elucidation of the acts of the 

defendant which led the court to conclude he had obstructed 

justice, we are left to speculate about the proper application of 

the guidelines. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for 

resentencing with a development of the factual record and findings 

as required by United States Sentencing Guidelines§ 6Al.3. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2284 Document: 010110059602 Date Filed: 10/12/1990 Page: 2