Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03909/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03909-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Mojica-Almaguer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3909

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Juan Mojica-Almaguer, also known as *

Andres Perez-Perez, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jose Dejesus Hurtado, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 4, 2006

Filed: December 7, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Mojica-Almaguer appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after a

jury found him guilty of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that the district court erred at sentencing in refusing to grant a

2-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We reject this

argument and affirm Mojica-Almaguer’s sentence.

Appellate Case: 05-3909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2006 Entry ID: 2116510
-2-

The district court’s finding--that Mojica-Almaguer’s case was not one of the

rare cases when an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is appropriate for a

defendant who has gone to trial--is not “so clearly erroneous as to be without

foundation.” See United States v. Card, 390 F.3d 592, 594-95 (8th Cir. 2004)

(standard of review). Mojica-Almaguer put the government to its burden of proof at

trial, cross-examined witnesses, contested evidence, and moved for a judgment of

acquittal on the basis that the government had failed to establish one of the factual

elements of the charged crime. See United States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626, 631-32

(5th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of reduction for accepting responsibility where

defendant, in addition to moving to suppress evidence against him, did not stipulate

to all evidence necessary for conviction and instead put government to its burden of

proof, and moved for judgment of acquittal at end of trial on grounds that government

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt); United States v. Stuart, 923 F.2d

607, 613 (8th Cir. 1991) (statements made by defendant acknowledging his guilt

during presentence interview and during allocution at sentencing did not entitle him

to reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility). We also reject MojicaAlmaguer’s argument that U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 punishes a defendant for exercising his

constitutional right to trial. See United States v. Smith, 40 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir.

1994).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2006 Entry ID: 2116510