Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04086/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Portillo-Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~D 

United Stares~«?! Appw., Tenth C•'"4n . 

OHITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 171992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ANTONIO PORTILLO-GARCIA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-4086 

(D.C. No. 91-CR-38A) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Antonio Portillo-Garcia appeals his sentence from a plea of 

guilty to the crime of illegal reentry, 8 u.s.c. S 1326. 

*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: 91-4086 Document: 010110242999 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 1
Defendant contends the trial court erred by not affording him a 

two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and by giving 

him a two level enhancement for committing the offense while under 

a prior sentence. Concluding the decision to deny the reduction 

is not clearly erroneous and that the appellant did not preserve 

the remaining issue for appeal, we affirm. 

The facts are simple and not disputed. Mr. Portillo-Garcia 

was discovered in the Salt Lake County jail by officers of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. An INS check revealed 

defendant had been deported in July, 1990, following a state court 

felony conviction. A state court warrant for violating the terms 

of the probation emanating from that conviction had issued and was 

pending at the time of defendant's reentry. 

At the time of sentencing, defendant told the court: 

I didn't know that it was such a crime to come over 

here . I came here to look for a job at a ranch. And if 

I couldn't get one I was going to return back to Mexico. 

I have no papers, legal papers, and I don't speak 

English. And I was ready to go back to Mexico. And the 

police just arrested me for being illegal. For nothing. 

Defendant's counsel argued that the court should award a two point 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility because Mr. PortilloGarcia made a "straight-forward" admission of his guilt. Counsel 

contended, "I don't think that there ' s much more that can be done 

to demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility than to be candid 

about it." The trial court disagreed. 

Drawing upon prior experience as a measuring device, the 

court concluded defendant really did not accept responsibility for 

his illegal reentry. The judge added, "I can recognize a 

Defendant who's bound and determined to keep coming back any way 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4086 Document: 010110242999 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 2
he can and somehow accomplish what he feels is true 

justice. II 

Defense counsel also made 

argument against imposition 

criminal history calculus. 

effectively responsible for 

what he termed an "equitable" 

of a two level increase in the 

He contended the government was 

defendant's violation of his state 

probation; therefore, it would not be "equitable" to impose an 

increased burden on the defendant. No attempt was made to show 

the state court warrant was invalid or withdrawn at the time of 

defendant's reentry, nor was it disputed that the sentence of 

probation was valid and unsatisfied at the time. 

The district court refused to accept defendant's theory of 

equity. The court noted, "[defendant] was under the jurisdiction 

of the Third District Court as of March 2, '87, and that's the 

reason why I think that the two level is merited." 

The district court's decision to deny the two level reduction 

for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed upon a clearly 

erroneous standard. United States v. Dennison, 937 F.2d 559 (10th 

Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 886 (1992). Our examination 

of the record fails to disclose such an abuse. 

Defendant argues the district court based its determination 

upon his pre-arrest conduct, interpreting the court's remarks to 

apply only to the occasions upon which defendant had been deported 

without charge. We do not view the record so narrowly. 

We believe the record indicates the district court assessed 

all the circumstances, including defendant's in-court statements, 

and concluded defendant was not remorseful and would illegally 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4086 Document: 010110242999 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 3
reenter again to suit his own purposes. While that assessment 

included defendant's past and present conduct as well as his 

manifestation of intent for the future, it is not without 

foundation or facts. The trial judge is in the best position to 

judge the true measure of a defendant's acceptance of 

responsibility, and the judge's determination is entitled to 

"great deference." Dennison, 937 F.2d at 559; u.s.s.G. S 3El.l, 

note 5. 

On appeal, defendant has abandoned his "equitable" argument 

against imposition of the two point increase in his criminal 

history. He now contends the district court failed to rule on the 

validity of his state probation. 

Commission of a crime while under a sentence of probation 

requires a two point enhancement in criminal history under 

u.s.s.G. § 4Al.l(d). Because defendant did not contest the 

viability of the state probation during the sentence hearing, 

arguing merely its application to this case was unjust, no record 

was made about the underlying facts. 

The only record before us is the presentence report which 

sets forth the defendant's state court conviction and probation 

sentence, reporting "[a] probation violation warrant for this 

offense was issued on August 20, 1987 and again on January 9, 

1991. The warrant remains outstanding." That report was not 

contested during sentencing and appears to have been the factual 

predicate for the trial court's denial of defendant's criminal 

history plea. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4086 Document: 010110242999 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 4
Because defendant did not challenge this report, the trial 

court was not called upon to make a finding of whether it was 

factually accurate, or whether the state probation judgment 

existed at the time of his illegal reentry. At this point, 

defendant's argument of what might have been is mere speculation. 

We therefore will not consider the issue on appeal. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-4086 Document: 010110242999 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 5