Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03024/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaura Rocha
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAIJIU.ted States Co11rtof Appeal! 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

ISAURA ROCHA, a/k/a ISAURA GALVAN, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

DEC 3 0 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3024 

(D.C. No. 91-20043-01 ) 

(Dist. Kan. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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. 

Defendant Isaura Rocha appeals from her conviction for 

creating and supplying false documents to the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS ) and for conspiracy to defraud the 

INS. She argues that the district court committed reversible 

error by admitting evidence of her prior conduct involving 

*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: 92-3024 Document: 010110155923 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 1 
fraudulent immigration applications. She also contends that the 

district court erred by applying an incorrect guideline and by 

failing to grant her a downward departure for her acceptance of 

responsibility. 

Ms . Rocha assisted aliens in completing applications f or the 

seasonal agricultural worker (SAW) amnesty program, both on her 

own and in her previous employment with Harvest America. 

According to the Government, Ms. Rocha completed the SAW 

applications either without verifying the employment information 

or by filling in false employment information. Harvest America 

terminated Ms . Rocha for substantially the same conduct and stated 

so in a letter. 

We review the trial court's admission of evidence for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Temple, 862 F .2d 821, 822 (1 0th 

Cir. 1988). Rule 404 (b ) "generally prohibits the introduction of 

evidence of extrinsic acts that might adversely reflect on the 

actor's character, unless that evidence bears on a relevant issue 

in the case such as motive, opportunity, or knowledge . 111 

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 685 (1988 ) . The 

Government used the circumstances of Ms . Rocha's termination from 

1 Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) provides: 

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not 

admissible to prove the character of a person in order 

to show action in conformity therewith. It may, 

however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof 

of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 

knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3024 Document: 010110155923 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 2 
Harvest America during her cross-examination. Ms. Rocha argues 

that this use was improper and prejudicial in that the Government 

did not present any evidence that she was fired specifically due 

to violations of the immigration laws. 2 

11The terminology 'crimes, wrongs, or acts' [in Rule 404 (b ) ], 

indicates that conduct that is neither criminal nor unlawful is 

[admissible] if it . is relevant to something other than 

propensity. 11 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein' s Evidence, ~I 

404[08], at 404-48 (1992). Thus, the government need not prove a 

legal violation in order for Ms. Rocha's improprieties in her 

previous employment to constitute 11 other acts" under Rule 404 (b ). 

Moreover, evidence in the record supports the reason for Ms. 

Rocha's termination. In fact, Ms. Rocha herself testified that 

she was terminated for improprieties in the applications she 

completed. Rec., vol . IV, at 722. 

The Government argues that the termination was used to prove 

knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake. Ms. Rocha's defense 

was based on her lack of knowledge of the falsity of the 

information contained in the applications. It was therefore 

proper to allow use of the circumstances of her termination to 

rebut Ms . Rocha's defense and to prove knowledge. 

Ms. Rocha next argues that the district court incorrectly 

sentenced her under Sentencing Guideline 2L2. 1 rather than under 

2 The letter was not offered into evidence but rather was used 

to refresh Ms. Rocha's recollection concerning her termination 

from Harvest America . Rec., vol. IV, at 720-722 . 

-3 -

Appellate Case: 92-3024 Document: 010110155923 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 3 
2L2 . 2. We review de novo the district court's determination of 

which guideline is most appropriate. United States v. Smith, 919 

F.2d 123, 125 (10th Cir. 1990 ). Ms. Rocha was convicted under 8 

U. S . C . § 116 0 ( b ) ( 7 ) (A) (ii) ( 19 8 8 ) and 18 U. S . C. § 3 71 ( 19 8 8 ) . 

Appendix A of the Guidelines lists both 2L2.1 and 2L2.2 as 

1 . bl 'd l' 3 app ica e gui e ines. When more than one guideline is listed, 

we "use the guideline most appropriate for the nature of the 

offense conduct charged in the count of which the defendant was 

convicted. " U.S.S.G. App. A (1991). Guideline 2L2.1 applies to 

"Trafficking in Evidence of Citizenship or Documents Authorizing 

Entry," while guideline 2L2.2 applies to "Fraudulently Acquiring 

Evidence of Citizenship or Documents Authorizing Entry for Own 

Use." Ms. Rocha was convicted for completing applications on 

behalf of others, not an application for herself. Therefore, 

guideline 2L2.1 is the more appropriate of the two and the 

district court did not err in sentencing Ms . Rocha under it. 

Ms. Rocha also argues that the base offense level should have 

been reduced since she did not commit these offenses "for 

profit. 114 The trial court's application of the guidelines to the 

facts is given due deference. United States v. Uresti-Hernandez, 

968 F .2d 1042, 1047 (10th Cir. 1992). We will not reverse t he 

3 The relevant guideline for conspiracy to defraud the 

government is 2Xl.1 which sets the base level offense as that of 

the substantive offense. Thus, the two relevant guidelines are 

2L2.1 and 2L2 .2. 

4 "If the defendant committed the offense other than for 

profit, decrease by 3 levels. " U.S.S.G. § 2L2.l(b) (1 ) . 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3024 Document: 010110155923 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 4 
district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. Id. 

The commentary to Guideline 2L2.1 defines the term "for profit" to 

mean "for financial gain or commercial advantage." U.S.S.G. § 

2L2.l, comment . {n .1); see also Uresti-Hernandez, 968 F.2d at 1047 

{payment of $750 to defendant for transportation of illegal alien 

is offense committed "for profit"). The record demonstrates that 

Ms. Rocha charged money for these applications. See rec., vol. 

III, at 650. Therefore, she achieved financial gain by her 

conduct and the district court did not err in refusing to reduce 

the base offense level. 

Ms. Rocha's final argument also advocates a reduction in 

sentencing. The guidelines state that" [i]f the defendant clearly 

demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal 

responsibility for his [or her] c riminal conduct, reduce the 

offense level by 2 levels." U.S.S.G. § 3El.l {a). Ms. Rocha 

argues that t he sentencing judge and the probation officer did not 

consider her acceptance of responsibility and erroneously failed 

to reduce her offense level. She contends she demonstrated 

acceptance of responsibility in that, through counsel at her 

sentencing, she accepted the verdict and "was sincerely sorry for 

any harm she had caused. " Appellant's Br. at 12. Ms. Rocha 

argues that these "aspects of contrition" constitute acceptance of 

responsibility and she is therefore entitled to a reduction in 

offense level. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-3024 Document: 010110155923 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 5 
A district court's determination to grant a reduction is 

reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. 

Ward, 957 F.2d 737, 741 (10th Cir. 1992). The reduction for 

acceptance of responsibility is "not intended to apply to a 

defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial 

by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted 

and then admits guilt and expresses remorse." U.S . S.G. § 

3El.l (a ) , comment. (n .2) . The district court thus may find that 

acceptance of responsibility post-trial is untimely and does not 

qualify for the two-level reduction. United States v. PelayoMunoz, 905 F.2d 1429 , 1431 (10th Cir. 1990) (acceptance of 

responsibility at sentencing hearing does not qualify defendant 

for two-level reduction); see also United States v. Dennison, 937 

F.2d 559, 566 - 567 (10th Cir. 1990) (same) , cert. denied, 112 S. 

Ct . 886 (1992). Ms. Rocha did not express "contrition" until the 

pre -sentencing interview and in her objections to the presentencing report . Under these circumstances, the district court 

was not clearly erroneous in denying her a reduction in base 

offense level. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

- 6-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3024 Document: 010110155923 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 6