Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02009/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leticia Cisneros
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. ' .~. ·-:_·: j\;J.~ ~~ ,(:<" :~ --.-::':·:-::;-:·.=.:_•- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS '!'!:nE\ -:~.,-:,,7, , 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

LETICIA CISNEROS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 2 ~ 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk . 

No. 92-2009 

(D.C. No. CR-90-100-SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Leticia Cisneros pleaded guilty to two counts of 

_being an alien in possession of a weapon, in violation of 18 

u.s.c. SS 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2) (Counts I and II), failure to 

appear for arraignment, in violation of 18 u.s.c. S 3146(a) and 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 92-2009 Document: 010110307909 Date Filed: 08/28/1992 Page: 1
(b)(l)(A)(ii) (Count V), and falsely representing her social 

security number for purposes of obtaining a driver's license, in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (Count VI). The court sentenced her to fifteen months imprisonment on the weapons and false 

social security Counts I, II and VI, with a consecutive six month 

sentence on the failure to appear for arraignment Count V, followed with three years supervised release to run concurrently on 

all counts. 

Defendant appeals the sentence imposed upon her, making the 

following contentions: (1) the sentence violates the Ex Post 

Facto Clause of the United States Constitution because the guidelines the court applied to the crimes charged in Counts I and II 

were more onerous than those in effect at the time she committed 

those crimes; (2) the court erred in using defendant's failure to 

appear, that was the basis of Count V, and her activities with 

respect to securing a false social security number, that was the 

basis of Count VI, for a two point obstruction of justice enhancement; and (3) the court erred when it refused to grant a two point 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

The government admits that the Counts I and II offenses, 

alien in possession of weapons, occurred February 1, 1988, and 

March 30, 1988, when the base offense level for such offenses was 

nine. There was a delay in bringing defendant to trial because 

she failed to appear at her arraignment, fled to Mexico, and was 

not apprehended until August 7, 1991, after she had reentered the 

United States and established another identity. In the interim 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2009 Document: 010110307909 Date Filed: 08/28/1992 Page: 2
between the Counts I and II offenses and the arrest and apprehension in 1991, the guidelines were amended to increase the base 

offense level for Counts I and II to twelve. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.l(a), effective November 1, 1989 . It was this enhanced 

offense level that was utilized by the district court in its sentencing on Counts I, II and VI. The government concedes that this 

court decided in United States v. Saucedo, 950 F.2d 1508, 1513, 

1515 n.12 (10th Cir. 1991), that the Ex Post Facto Clause applies 

to punishment increases brought about by changes in the sentencing 

guidelines and prohibits retroactive application of a changed 

guideline when it disadvantages a defendant. Thus, the government 

concedes that the case should be remanded for the purpose of 

resentencing, employing the proper base offense levels for the 

convictions on Counts I and II. We agree. 

The sentencing court also increased defendant's base offense 

calculation two levels for obstruction of justice, apparently 

relying both upon the defendant's failure to appear for arraignment, that formed the basis of Count V, and defendant's use of a 

false social security number to obtain a driver's license and a 

different identity, that formed the basis of Count VI. When 

apprehended after a tip to local police and surveillance outside a 

bar, defendant insisted that she was Patricia Ponce (the name she 

used on the driver's license obtained under the false social 

security number), and continued to deny her true identity until 

her fingerprints taken at the scene were determined to be those of 

Leticia Cisneros. Defendant's argument, based on United States v. 

Lacey, No . 91-3255, 1992 WL 158730 (10th Cir. July 9, 1992), is 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-2009 Document: 010110307909 Date Filed: 08/28/1992 Page: 3
that the mandatory consecutive sentence dictated by law for Count 

V, the failure to appear at arraignment, prohibits use of that 

conviction for a two point enhancement for obstruction of justice. 

Her argument that the false social security number should not have 

been used for the obstruction of justice enhancement appears to be 

an argument that defendant's denial of her true identity when 

questioned and arrested did not actually obstruct justice. 

We do not have to consider the arguments concerning the failure to appear for arraignment (the basis of the Count V charge) 

because we are satisfied that the enhancement based on defendant's 

use of a false social security number adequately supports the 

court's increase for obstruction of justice. We agree with the 

government that United States v. Gardiner, 931 F.2d 33 (10th Cir. 

1991), and United States v. Urbanek, 930 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 

1991), as well as U.S.S.G. § 3Cl.1, comment. (n. 3(c)), support 

the enhancement. Even though the government was able to identify 

defendant through her fingerprints at the time she was first 

apprehended without any significant delay, her use of the false 

social security number to create a false identity to avoid 

detection until the officers received a crimestopper's tip, many 

months after she fled to Mexico to avoid arraignment, amply 

supports the obstruction of justice enhancement. 

Defendant asserts that the record in this case is not clear 

as to whether the district court intended to deny defendant the 

two point reduction for acceptance of responsibility she sought. 

At the same time, defendant appears to acknowledge that the court 

did deny the reduction. Insofar as defendant faults the district 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-2009 Document: 010110307909 Date Filed: 08/28/1992 Page: 4
court for failure to make its intention clear, now that the matter 

has been brought to the court's attention we have no doubt that in 

the resentencing proceedings on remand the district court will 

state its intention plainly. -

Insofar as defendant asserts that the court was required to 

give defendant a two point reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility, we disagree. Defendant's actions in fleeing 

arraignment, hiding in Mexico, reentering the United States, 

assuming a false identity, and denying her real identity until 

confronted with fingerprint proof, amply supports the court's 

apparent denial of the two point reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility. This court has held that merely admitting guilt 

is not sufficient to earn such a reduction. United States v. 

Hernandez, 967 F.2d 456 (10th Cir. 1992). See also u.s.s.G. 

§ 3El.l(c). That the admission of guilt occurred in the context 

of a negotiated guilty plea induced in part by the prosecution's 

dropping of two counts of a criminal complaint further weakens 

defendant's argument for a sentence reduction. 

We remand the case for resentencing based upon the government's admission that the presentence report, relied upon by the 

court, applied the wrong offense level guideline on Counts I and 

II. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-2009 Document: 010110307909 Date Filed: 08/28/1992 Page: 5