Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06221/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06221-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gilberto Pablo Alvarez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GILBERTO PABLO ALVAREZ, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

SEP 1 3 19SO 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6221 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. CR-89-49-T) 

Susan M. Otto, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, on the brief for defendant-appellant. 

Timothy D. Leonard, United States Attorney, and Teresa Black, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

on the brief for plaintiff-appellee. 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and BROWN,* 

District Judge. 

BROWN, District Judge. 

* Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States District Senior Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-6221 Document: 01019844411 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 1 
., 

) 

Appellant Alvarez alleges error in the district court's 

determination of his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The 

case is submitted on the briefs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(f). 

We affirm. 

Appellant was charged by superseding indictment with three 

counts arising out of an attempted escape from the Federal 

Correctional Ins ti tut ion at El Reno, Oklahoma. Mr. Alvarez entered 

a plea of guilty to Count Two of the superseding indictment, which 

charged him with attempted escape in violation of 18 U.S. C. 

§ 751(a). Appellant was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 

51 months, to run consecutively to his present term of incarceration, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. 

Appellant raises two issues on appeal. 1 First, he contends that 

the district court erroneously applied the career offender 

provision of the Sentencing Reform Act in determining his sentence. 

Second, he argues that the trial court erred by refusing to make 

a downward adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines to reflect 

appellant's minor participation in the attempted escape. 

Appellant first maintains that the district court erroneously 

classified him as a career offender. This argument is based on 28 

u.s.c. § 994(h), under which Congress directed the u. s. Sentencing 

Commission to enact guidelines applicable to a category of 

1 Appellant raised a third issue in his brief concerning the 

application of u.s.s.G. §§ 4Al,l(d) and (e) to his sentence. He 

concedes, however, that in view of this court's ruling in United 

States v. Goldbaum, 879 F.2d 811 (10th Cir. 1989), there is no 

basis for finding error in the district court's application of 

those sections. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6221 Document: 01019844411 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 2 
defendants classified as career offenders. The statute mandated 

that this classification apply to a defendant who is eighteen years 

old or older and who: 

(1) has been convicted of a felony that is--

(A) a crime of violence; or 

(B) an offense [involving controlled 

substances]; and 

(2) has been previously convicted of two or 

more prior felonies, each of which is--

(A) a crime of violence; or 

28 u.s.c. § 994(h). 

(B) an offense [involving controlled 

substances J • 

See also u.s.s.G. § 4Bl. Appellant argues 

that the career offender provision does not apply to him because 

his current felony conviction is a crime of violence2 while his 

prior felony convictions involved controlled substances. Appellant 

argues that Congress intended that the provision apply to career 

violent offenders and to career drug offenders, but not to 

offenders whose current offense is of a different character than 

the offender's prior offenses. After the briefs were submitted in 

this case, a panel of this court decided United States v. Newsome, 

898 F.2d 119 (10th Cir. 1990), in which the court rejected the same 

argument now asserted by appellant. For the reasons expressed in 

the Newsome case, we reject appellant's argument that his sentence 

was contrary to 28 u.s.c. § 994(h). 

Jones, 898 F.2d 1461 (10th Cir. 1990). 

See also United States v. 

Appellant's second contention is that the district court erred 

by refusing to make a downward adjustment in his offense level to 

2 Appellant concedes that his conviction in the instant case 

involved a "crime of violence." 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6221 Document: 01019844411 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 3 
reflect appellant's minor participation in the attempted escape. 

See U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.2. Appellant alleged that he was coerced into 

taking part in the escape attempt after its initiation by other 

inmates. He argued that he was less culpable than the other 

participants because he did not have prior knowledge of the escape 

attempt and did not take part in planning the escape. Appellant 

alleged that he played no part in the restraining and threatening 

of an institutional employee during the escape attempt. The 

presentence report, on the other hand, alleged that appellant was 

a willing participant in the escape attempt and that his actions 

did not warrant a downward adjustment. After holding an 

evidentiary hearing on the matter, the district court concluded 

that appellant was integrally involved in the escape and that a 

downward adjustment was not warranted. 

The district court's determination that appellant was not a 

minor participant is a finding of fact reviewed under a clearly 

erroneous standard. United States v. Pelayo-Munoz, No. 89-2194, 

slip op. (10th Cir. June 15, 1990). We reverse such findings only 

if they are without factual support in the record or if, after 

reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm 

conviction that the finding was erroneous. Id. (citing United 

States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1182 (10th Cir. 1990)). 

Moreover, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show by a 

preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a downward 

adjustment. United States v. Rutter, 897 F. 2d 1558, 1560 ( 10th 

Cir. 1990). 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6221 Document: 01019844411 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 4 
•· 

Applying these standards to the facts at hand, we find that 

the district court was not clearly erroneous. An institutional 

employee who witnessed the escape attempt testified that he saw no 

indication that appellant was being coerced into participating in 

the escape. {Tr. at 22). The witness testified that he had been 

grabbed and restrained by three inmates, one of whom he thought was 

the appellant Alvarez. {Tr. at 15-16). The testimony showed that 

appellant used a welding torch to cut two metal bars that blocked 

a tunnel leading to an unguarded area. (Tr. at 19-20). The 

removal of these bars allowed the inmates to reach the outer 

perimeter of the prison. Appellant was captured with three other 

inmates by the outer fence of the prison while one of them 

attempted to cut the barrier wire to the fence. Given this 

evidence of appellant's participation in the escape attempt, the 

district court's determination that appellant was integrally 

involved in the offense is not clearly erroneous. Appellant has 

not shown that he was less culpable than the other participants in 

the offense. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court's 

refusal to make a downward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.2. 

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6221 Document: 01019844411 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 5