FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10760 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 97 -002 43 -C R -2-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A U R I C O J U A Q U I N O R T I Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 12, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M a u r ic o J u a q u in O r tiz ap p e a ls h is 1 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e s f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 , a n d a tte m p tin g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 846. O n appe a l , O r t i z f i r s tc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n appl y i ng atw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orobs truc t i on of j us t i c e , unde rU . S . S . G § 3C 1. 1, be c a us e he f l e d the j ur i s di c t i on due t o c onc e rns o v e rh is f

a m ily . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s r egar di ng the i m po si t i on of an en h an ce m en t fo r o b stru ctio n o f ju stice f o r c learer ro r a n d th e d istrict co u rt’s appl i c a t i on of

the f a c tua l f i ndi ngs t o the gui de l i ne s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a s s e y , 443 F . 3d 814, 818 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he gui de l i ne s pr ovi de tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti s a uthor i z e d t o a s s e s s atw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e nti f “ the de f e nda nt w i l l f ul l y obs truc t e d ori m pe de d, ora tt e m pt e d t o obs truc tori m pe de , the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of

j us t i c e dur i ng the c our s e of the i nve s t i ga t i on, pr os e c ut i on, or s e nt e nc i ng of

the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1 ( 2005) . T he c om m e nt a ry t o § 3C 1. 1 pr ovi de s anon- e xha us t i ve l i s tof e xa m pl e s of

the ty pe s of cond uctt o w hi ch the enhancem entappl i es , i ncl ud i ng “ w i l l ful l y f ai l i ng t o app ea r, as ordered, for aj ud i ci al proceedi ng . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 4(e) ) (200 5).3

U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt , a nd upon consi dera t i on of the bri ef s of the part i es , w e di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e te rm in e d th a t O r tiz w illf u lly f a ile d to appear a thi s a rr ai gn m ent , and there fore , the appl i ca t i on of the tw o-l evel enhancem entfor obstruct i on of j ust i ce un der § 3C 1. 1 w as approp ri at e. T he re cord r e f l e c t s tha ts e ve r a l f

a m i l y m e m be r s t e s t i f

i e d tha tO r t i z l e f

tthe j ur i s di c t i on i n 1997 d u e to c o n c e rn s o v e rh is f a m ily ’s h e a lth a n d s a f

e ty . H a v in g c o n s id e r e d th is t e s t i m ony , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe de f

e nda ntdi d notha ve t o f l e e the j uri sdi ct i on i n o rdert o p rovi de for the sa fe ty of hi s f am i l y. T here fore , the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t c o m m it c le a re rrin ap p ly in g th e § 3 C 1 .1 e n h a n c e m e n t b e c a u s e O r tiz w illf u lly f a ile d to ap p e a r . O r tiz n e x t a r g u e s th a t b e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t d e c lin e d to f ile a§ 5 K 1 .1 m ot i on for dow nw ar d d eparture, the di stri ctcourtef fe ct i vel y pun i shed hi m tw i ce f orl e a vi ng the j ur i s di c t i on be c a us e the c our ta l s o e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e f or ob struct i on of j ust i ce . T he se nt enci ng gu i del i nes s t at e i n p ert i nentpartthat

“ [u] po n m ot i on of the go vernm entst at i ng thatthe defendanthas provi ded subst ant i al as si st ance i n the i nv es t i gat i on or prosec ut i on of another pers on w ho has c o m m itte d a n o f

f e n s e , th e c o u r t m a y d e p a r t f r o m th e g u id e lin e s .” U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 ( 2005) . “ [ T ] he de c i s i on t o f i l e a§ 5K 1. 1 m ot i on f

ordow nw a r d de pa r tur e f r om the4

[s ] ent enci ng [g] ui del i nes . . . l i es w i thi n the soun d d i sc re t i on of the [g] ov ernm ent . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. A l vare z, 11 5 F . 3d 83 9, 84 1 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ) . T he S up re m e C ou rt h a s m a d e c le a rth a t “§ 5 K 1 .1 . . . g iv e s th e G o v e rn m e n t ap o w e r , n o t ad u ty , to f ile am ot i on w he n ade f

e nda ntha s s ubs t a nt i a l l y a s s i s t e d. ” W a de v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 504 U . S . 18 1, 18 5, 11 2 S . C t . 18 40 , 18 43 , 11 8 L . E d. 2d 52 4 (19 92 ). In the abse nce of a pl eaagre em ent , j ud i ci al re vi ew of the go vernm ent ’ s f ai l ure t o fi l e asubst ant i al a s s is ta n c e m o tio n is lim ite d to u n c o n s titu tio n a l m o tiv e , a n d w e h a v e n o te d th e r e is a“ r e l uc t a nc e t o e nt e ri nt o the pr os e c ut or i a l di s c r e t i on a r e naof the e xe c ut i ve b r a n c h .” U n ite d S ta te s v . F o rn e y , 9 F .3 d1 4 9 2 , 1 5 0 1 , 1 5 0 3 n .4 . ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e have al so previ ou sl y hel d thatw hen the go vernm enthas f ai l ed t o fi l e a subst ant i al as si st ance m ot i on , any a ss i st ance the defendantm i gh thave prov i ded th e g o v e rn m e n t is n o t ap e rm is s ib le g r o u n d f o rad o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e in c a l c ul a t i ng a n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne r a nge . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1 1 8 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H e r e , th e g o v e rn m e n t’s d e c is io n to f ile am o tio n u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 r e s t e d s ol e l y w i th the pr os e c ut ora nd notw i th the di s tr i c tc our t . B utO r t i z c ont e nds i tw a s “ unr e a s onabl e f

orthe [ di s tr i c t ] c our t[ t o] appl y the obs truc t i on e nha nc e m e nt i n l i ghtof

O r t i z l os i ng the 5K r e duc t i on. ” T hi s a r gum e nti gnor e s the f a c ttha tthe co u rt’s ap p li ca ti o n o f U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 is in d ep en d en t o f th e g o v er n m en t’ s5

deci si on t o fi l e am ot i on un der § 5K 1. 1. T here fore , O rt i z has fa i l ed t o sho w that the di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e rr e d i n appl y i ng the tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf or ob struct i on of j ust i ce , pu rs uantt o § 3C 1. 1. A cc ordi ng l y, O rt i z’ s s ent ence s a re a f f i rm e d. A FFI R M ED .