Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10926/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10926-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noel Espinoza-Santos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10926

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NOEL ESPINOZA-SANTOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-77-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noel Espinoza-Santos appeals the 130-month above-guidelines sentence 

imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for illegal 

reentry. He challenges the district court’s imposition of the two-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Espinoza-

 

* 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

August 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10926 Document: 00513642357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2016
No. 15-10926

2

Santos also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his above-guidelines 

sentence.

Espinoza-Santos argues that the district court erred by imposing the 

two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1. He contends 

that the discrepancy between his post-arrest statement and the statements he 

made in his “Truth Affidavit” and at sentencing was the result of a mistake 

rather than a willful attempt to obstruct justice. Espinoza-Santos also asserts 

that there is insufficient evidence to support the enhancement.

The “district court’s interpretation or application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines is reviewed de novo, and its factual findings, such as a finding of 

obstruction of justice, are reviewed for clear error.” United States v. JuarezDuarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008). A factual finding is not clearly 

erroneous as long as it is “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id. “This 

is particularly true where a sentencing court’s imposition of a § 3C1.1 

enhancement is based, at least in part, upon an evaluation of a witness’ 

credibility.” United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 753 (5th Cir. 1999).

In his post-arrest interview with immigration authorities, EspinozaSantos stated that he illegally reentered the United States in March 2014. 

However, after learning that his sentence would be increased if it was 

determined that he reentered in March 2014, Espinoza-Santos filed the Truth 

Affidavit and testified at sentencing that he reentered in March 2015. In light 

of the significant deference afforded the district court’s credibility 

determination, it is not implausible that Espinoza-Santos falsely stated in his 

Truth Affidavit and at sentencing that he reentered in March 2015. See 

Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208; Powers, 168 F.3d at 753. Therefore, he has 

not shown that the district court erred by imposing the obstruction of justice 

enhancement.

 Case: 15-10926 Document: 00513642357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2016
No. 15-10926

3

Espinoza-Santos also argues that his above-guidelines sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the 

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support, he contends that the 

district court failed to adequately consider that he had culturally assimilated 

in the United States and that his “criminal history lay in the distant past.”

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of 

discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Where, as here, the 

district court imposes an upward variance from the guidelines range, this court 

must determine whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect” the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th 

Cir. 2006). An above-guidelines sentence is unreasonable if it “(1) does not 

account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives 

significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear 

error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id.

The record reflects that after considering the presentence report, 

Espinoza-Santos’s sentencing memorandum, the parties’ arguments at 

sentencing, and the applicable guidelines range, the district court concluded 

that a within-guidelines sentence was insufficient to satisfy the sentencing 

goals of § 3553(a). Espinoza-Santos’s arguments about his cultural 

assimilation and criminal history amount to nothing more than a 

disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, which 

is insufficient to show the district court abused its discretion. See United 

States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10926 Document: 00513642357 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/18/2016