Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50404/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50404-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Alva Upchurch
Appellant

Document Text:

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 1, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50404

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALVA UPCHURCH,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-02-CR-66-2

 

Before GARWOOD, DEMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alva Upchurch pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual

exploitation of children, and the district court sentenced her to

151 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release.

Upchurch argues in this appeal that the district court erred in

determining that she had obstructed justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. §

 Case: 03-50404 Document: 0051425986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2004
2

3C1.1 and adjusting her offense level accordingly.

Because Upchurch adduced no evidence in the district court to

rebut the facts recited in the presentence report (PSR), the

district court was free to adopt those facts and rely upon them in

sentencing Upchurch. See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120

(5th Cir. 1995).

The PSR details Upchurch’s attempt to persuade the victim to

recant the account of the underlying facts that she gave to police.

This incident forms a sufficient basis for the district court’s

imposition of the disputed adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1,

comment. (4(a)). Upchurch has not shown that the district court’s

findings on this issue are not “plausible in light of the record as

a whole.” United States v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir.

1993) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

Upchurch argues that her attempt to have the minor victim

recant the account she gave the police occurred approximately two

days before the federal, as opposed to the state, investigation

began. The record contains nothing from which it may be inferred

that a federal investigation had commenced before Upchurch

attempted to have the minor victim recant, nor did the district

court or the PSR find or state that a federal (as opposed to a

state) investigation had then begun.

Upchurch relies on United States v. Clayton, 172 F.3d 347 (5th

Cir. 1999). Clayton, however, is inapposite, as there the

 Case: 03-50404 Document: 0051425986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2004
3

allegedly obstructive conduct occurred immediately after commission

of the offense, and before any investigation had commenced. While

our opinion there does refer to “the federal investigation,” there

is no suggestion in Clayton that there was ever any other

investigation, and it is apparent that there could not have been at

the time of the assertedly obstructive conduct, which was

essentially contemporaneous with the offense. Here the criminal

conduct constituting the federal offense (violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2251(a) where the “visual depiction was produced using materials

that have been mailed, shipped or transported in interstate or

foreign commerce by any means, including by computer”) had all

occurred and was the identical conduct that was allegedly under

investigation by the local police, as Upchurch was plainly aware,

at the time of her effort to cause the minor victim to recant which

was clearly designed to obstruct that and any other investigation

into that criminal conduct. The fact that the federal authorities

are not shown to have then commenced their investigation is in

these circumstances not determinative. See United States v.

Roberts, 243 F.3d 235, 238-40 (6th Cir. 2001), and authorities

there cited.

Upchurch’s argument that her efforts to have the victim recant

did not in fact significantly impede any investigation are without

merit. Such obstruction comes within U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment

4(a) which covers “attempting” to “unlawfully influenc[e] a . . .

 Case: 03-50404 Document: 0051425986 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2004
4

witness.” Upchurch’s reliance on United States v. Ahmed, 324 F.3d

368 (5th Cir. 2003), is misplaced, as Ahmed concerned only false

material statements to law enforcement officers and under U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.1 comments 4(g) and 5(b), that form of obstruction normally

must have “significantly obstructed or impeded” the investigation

or prosecution.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-50404 Document: 0051425986 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/01/2004