Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50194/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50194-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcial Alegria Cabana
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50188

c/w No. 13-50194

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCIAL ALEGRIA CABANA, also known as Jose Diaz-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-399-1

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1541-1

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Marcial Alegria Cabana appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States following 

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals the revocation of a 

prior term of supervised release.

* 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

January 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50194 Document: 00512490249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-50188

c/w No. 13-50194

Cabana contends that the district court erred when it enhanced his 

offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 because he did not willfully obstruct 

justice and his statement to the magistrate judge was not materially false. The 

district court’s determination that a defendant obstructed justice under 

§ 3C1.1 is a factual finding that we review for clear error. United States v. 

Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008).

At Cabana’s initial appearance, the magistrate judge explained that he 

wanted to ensure that Cabana’s name was correct and that it was spelled 

correctly on the complaint. The magistrate judge then asked Cabana whether 

he was Jose Diaz-Hernandez, the name Cabana had given Border Patrol 

agents upon his arrest. Cabana unequivocally answered yes and continued to 

respond to that false name throughout the proceeding. Cabana’s use of a false 

name when under oath before the magistrate judge was sufficient to support 

the obstruction of justice enhancement, even without a showing of significant 

hindrance. See § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(F)); United States v. McDonald, 964 

F.2d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the district court did not clearly 

err when it enhanced Cabana’s offense level pursuant to § 3C1.1.

Cabana also contends that the district court erred when it denied him a 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because 

the denial was based on the district court’s erroneous determination that he 

obstructed justice. In the alternative, he argues that his was one of the 

extraordinary cases in which the reduction was warranted despite an 

obstruction of justice enhancement. 

We review a district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1 under a standard that is even more 

deferential than the purely clearly erroneous standard. United States v. 

Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2003). “The ruling should not be 

2

 Case: 13-50194 Document: 00512490249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-50188

c/w No. 13-50194

disturbed unless it is without foundation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

As previously discussed, the district court did not clearly err when it 

enhanced Cabana’s offense level pursuant to § 3C1.1. Further, Cabana has 

failed to demonstrate that this is indeed one of those extraordinary cases in 

which adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 apply. See § 3E1.1, 

comment. (n.4); United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 574-75 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Although his alias may have been well known to immigration officials, his use 

of a false name when under oath before the magistrate judge suggests that he 

had not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. Therefore, the district 

court’s determination that Cabana was not entitled to a reduction for 

acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1 is not without foundation. See 

Washington, 340 F.3d at 227.

Finally, Cabana raises no claims of error with respect to the revocation 

proceeding or sentence. Thus, he has abandoned any issues on appeal 

regarding the revocation judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 

(5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-50194 Document: 00512490249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2014