2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-16-2002

USA v. Padilla

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 00-3752

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Padilla" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 516.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/516
 

 

 NOT P

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 

 Nos. 00-3752/00-4255 

 

 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

 v. 

 

 ROQUE PADILLA 

 a/k/a 

 RAFAEL CRUZ 

 RAFAEL PEVALTA 

 

 Roque Padilla, 

 Appellant 

 

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Criminal Action No. 00-cr-00012-1) 

 District Judge: Honorable Franklin S. VanAntwerpen 

 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 on March 22, 2002 

 

 Before: ROTH, NYGAARD 

 and AMBRO, Circuit Judges 

 

 (Opinion filed : August 16, 2002 ) 

 

 

 O P I N I O N 

 

ROTH, Circuit Judge: 

 Roque Padilla pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 

21 U.S.C. 846, and to distribution of crack cocaine and possession of cocaine with 

intent to distribute both in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841. While awaiting his sentence on 

the above plea, Padilla testified as a defense witness for his two co-conspirators. The 

District Court conducted a hearing on whether Padilla had committed perjury and 

obstructed justice when he testified, thus forfeiting his sentencing guideline reduction for 

accepting responsibility. The District Court found that Padilla had obstructed justice and 
that a two-level sentencing enhancement was appropriate. 

 Padilla now appeals the District Court’s finding. The District Court had subject 

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. 

 Because it is a factual matter of whether a defendant has "accepted responsibility," 

our standard of review for such a case is the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. 

DeLeon-Rodriquez, 70 F. 3d 764, 767 (3d Cir. 1995). "The sentencing judge is in a 

unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, 

the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review." Id. 

(citing Application Note 5 to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1). Furthermore, it is the burden of the 

defendant to show that by a preponderance of the evidence a reduction under U.S.S.G. 

3C1.1 is warranted. See United States v. Rodriguez, 975 F. 2d 999, 1008 (3d Cir. 1992). 

 U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 provides that if a defendant "willfully obstructed or 

 impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during th

 investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense, an increase in the offe

 level by two levels is appropriate." After conducting a hearing on such potential 

 violation, the District Court judge determined that Padilla’s testimony was perjurious an

 therefore a two level sentencing enhancement was appropriate. 

 For a trial court to find that perjury has occurred, it must find: (1) that the 

defendant gave false testimony; (2) concerning a material matter; and (3) with the intent 

to provide false testimony. The District Court judge determined that Padilla’s testimony 

met all the requirements of perjury. The judge concluded that "all three defendants ... 

were willfully untruthful in their testimony at trial with respect to material matters 

designed to substantially affect the outcome of their case." 

 Based on the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the District Court’s issuance 

of a sentencing enhancement was clearly erroneous. We will affirm the judgment of the 

District Court. 

_____________________________ 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing Opinion. 

 By the Court 

 /s/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judge