### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50200
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee v. C H R IS T O P H E R L A L E X A N D E R , D e fe nda nt–Appe l l ant

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d B E N AV ID E S an d P R A D O , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P R A D O , C i rcui t Ju dg e: C h ri st oph er L. A l exan der ap pea l s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s app l i cat i on of a t w op oin t i n crea se f

or obs tru cti on of j u sti ce un d er § 3 C 1
. 1 of th e U .S . S EN T ENC I NG G U IDELINES ( “ U
. S. S. G
. ” )
. Al e xa nde r a r gue s t hatt he o bs t r uc t i o n o f j u st i ce en h a n cem en t w a s n ot w a rra n ted be ca u se th e ob stru cti ve con d u ct did n ot relate t o t he dr ug o f

fe ns e f o r w hi c h he w as c o nvi c t e d. Al e xa nde r a l s o a r gue s t hathe
c o u ld n o t h a v e in te n d e d to d is r u p t th e fe d e r a l in v e s tig a tio n b e c a u s e h e w a s in
c ust ody f

ors t at e c harge s at t he t i m e of t he obs t r uct i ve c onduct and t he f ede r al i n vest i gati on ha d n ot yet begu n . W e f i n d A l exan der’ s argum en t s un persua si ve. United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 31, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50200 Document: 00511067824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 50200

Alex ande r also argues that th e di strict court sh ou ld h ave granted adownward 1 a dj u st me nt fo r a cc ep tan ceo f re sp on sib ilityu n der U .S .S .G
. § 3 E 1 .1
. Ale x a n de r co n ce de s, however, thatif the distric t co urt properly appli ed th e obstru ctionof ju stice adj ustment, th en it corre ctlydenied the acce ptance o f respo nsib ility adj ustment. We e xpress noopinio n on wheth er Alex ande r pre sents extrao rdin arycircumsta nces thatw ou ld j ustifyfin ding a cc ep tan ceo f re sp on sib ilityd es pitehi s ob stru ctio nof j u stic e. United States v. Rodrigu ez , 94 2 F.2 d 89 9, 9 02–03 (5thC ir. 1 991 ) (ho ldin g that “this i s no t on e of those extrao rdin aryca ses in whichadj ustments un der both§§ 3C 1.1 and 3E 1.1 mayapp ly” )
. Be c auseAlex ande r’s sol e argument depe nds upon our reversalof the obstructi on of j usticeadj ustment, we affirm as to acce ptance o f respo nsib ility as well. Smith is currentlyservin g a sixtymonth sente nce for po ssession of mor e th an thre e 2 gra ms of c ocaine base
. 2 T h u s, w e af

f i rm hi s s en t en ce. 1 I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND A u st i n P o li ce D epa rt m en t ( “A P D ” ) of f i cers arres t ed A l exan der af t er f i n di n g cocai n e base i n hi s c ar du ri n g a tr a ffi c s t op. W h i l e i n j ai l , A l exan der cal l ed h i s father an d d i rect ed h im to r em ove t h ree f i rearm s f

rom hi s bedroom
an d d el i ver at l east on e of t h em t o T ri n ity D u k e Sm i t h , a kn ow n drug dealer
. 2 S everal y ears p ri or, A l exan der w as a p asseng er i n S m i t h ’ s c ar w h en t h e pol i ce f ou n d 0. 28 gram s of

coc ai n e base an d $3, 000 i n cash on S m i t h
. Stat e au t h ori t i es d id n o t p r e s s ch a r g e s b a s e d o n th a t in c id e n t, h o w e v e r . U n b e k n o w n s t t o A le x a n d e r , th e ja il r e c o r d e d h is co n v e r s a tio n w ith h is fat he r , a nd APD de t e c t i ve s r e vi e w e d t he t ap e s s e ve r alw e e ks l at er. The detect i ves obtai n ed c on sent f rom A l exan der’ s father t o search an d f ou n d tw o of t h e f i rearm s i n A l exan der’ s bedroom an d re co v ered t h e ot h er f i rearm f

rom A l exan der’ s gi rl f

ri en d. Th e A P D broug h t t h i s c ase t o t h e att en t i on of t h e U n i t ed S tates A ttorn ey ’ s O ff i ce a rou n d the ti m e th a t A l ex a n d er m a d e th e p h on e ca l lto h i s father. F ederal investi gati on res u l t ed i n an i n di ct m en t severalw eeks l ater
. A l exanderpl ed g u i l ty to pos se ss i on w i t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e m or e t han Case: 09-50200 Document: 00511067824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 50200

3 f i f t y gram s of

coc ai n e base i n vi ol ati on of 21 U
. S
. C
. § 841(a) ( 1)
. Th e probati on o f f i c e r e c o m m e nde d i n t he Pr e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i o n Rep o r t ( “ PSR ” ) i nc r e as i ng Al e xa nde r ’ s ba s e o f

fe ns e l e ve l by t w o l e ve l s unde r § 3C1. 1 f o r o bs t r uc t i o n of j us t i c e ba s e d o n t h e c a l lh e mad e t o h i s fa t h e r d i r e c t i n gh i m t o mo v e t he f i rearm s, an d recom m en ded den yi n g a n adj u st m en t f or acc eptan ce of
r e s po ns i bi l i t y unde r § 3 E1. 1. Al e xa nde r o bj e c t e d t o t he PSR, c l ai m i ng t hatt he obstr u ct i ve cond u ctdi d n ot rel ate t o hi s c ri m e of convic t i on . A l exan der al so obj ec t ed t o t he deni alof a de c r eas e f

oracc ept ance of

r es ponsibi l i t y, ar gui ng t hat i t shou l d ap pl y i f t h e obstr u ct i on of j u st i ce adj u st m en t di d n ot
. Th e di st ri ctcourt ad opted t h e recom m en da t i on s i n t h e P S R an d f ou n d an adj u st ed of

fen se l evel of t hi r t y- t w o, w hi c h, c o m bi ne d wi t h a c r i m i nalhi s t o r y c at e go r y o f V, pr o duc e d a gu i del i n e sentenci n g ran ge of 188 t o 235 m on t h s. Th e di st ri ctcourt sentenced A le x a n d e r to 1 8 8 m o n th s ’im p r is o n m e n t. A le x a n d e r tim e ly a p p e a l e d h is sentence. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . St andard of

R evi ew W e r e vi e w a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o r a ppl i c at i o n o f t he Se nt e nc i ng G u i del i n es de no vo , b u t r e v ie w its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r cle a r e r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v . Ju a re z-D u a rte , 513 F. 3d 204, 208 ( 5t h C i r . 200 8)
. “ Ther e i s no c l e are r r o r i f t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s f

i n d i n g is plau sibl e in li gh t of th e reco rd a s a w h ole. ” I d. ( c i t i ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ha r ms , 4 4 2 F .3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 )). “‘T h e [P S R ] is
c ons i der ed r el i abl e evi denc e f or r es ent enc i ng purpos es . ’ ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. R easor , 541 F. 3d 366, 369 ( 5th C i r. 2008) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. C l ark , 139 F. 3d 48 5 , 4 9 0 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) )
. Th e d i s t r i c t c o ur t i s f r e e t o a d o p t t he fac t ual f i ndi ngs w i t hi n t he PSR w i t ho ut f ur t he r i nqui r y i f

t he def e nda nt doe s no t hi ng Case: 09-50200 Document: 00511067824 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 50200

The obstructionof ju stice guidelinewas a mended in 200 6, r eplacin g “duringth e 3 co u rs e of

” wi th “w ithr es pe ctt o. ” U. S. S. G. § 3 C 1 .1 , su pp . toapp . C , a me n d. 6 9 3( 2 0 0 6). Ale x a n de r cite s Un ited St atesv . B ro wn , 470 F.3 d 109 1, 109 4–9 6 (5th Cir. 200 6) f orth e propositionth at acti ons occurrin g befo r e t he commenc ementof the federal investigatio n cannot serve a s theba sis forU.S.S.G. § .3C 1.1 enh anc ement . However, we decide d B ro wn und er the pre-Amendment versionof the guideline ’s re quirement that the obstructioncon duct oc cur “du rin gth e co u rs e of a ni nv es ti g ati on , pros ec u ti on , orse nte n cin go f th e fe de ral
. . . charge .” Id
. at 1 0 9 6
. B ro wndoe s no t applyh ere be c au s e w e m us task wheth er Alex ande r attempte d to ob struct ju stice “with respectto the inve stig atio n, prosecution , or s ente nci ngof the instance offen se of convicti on.” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1. 4 to re b u t t h e in fo r m a tio n co n ta in e d in th e P S R
. I d.
. B . U .S .S .G . §3C1. 1 U .S .S .G
. § 3 C 1
. 1 pr ov i d es th a t: If (A ) t h e defen da n t w i l l f u l l y obstr u ct ed o r im p eded , or att em pted to ob stru ct or i m p ed e, th e a d m i n i stration o f j u sti ce w i th resp ect to t h e i n vest i gati on , prosecuti on , or sentenci n g of t h e i n st an t of

fen se o f c o nvi c t i on , a nd ( B) t he o bs t r uc t i ve c o nduc t r e l at e d t o ( i) t he d e fen d a n t’ s o ffen se of co n v iction a n d a n y re lev a n t co n d u ct; of (ii) a c lo s e ly re la te d o ffe n s e , in c r e a s e th e o ffe n s e le v e l b y 2 le v e ls .” O bs t r uct i ve c onductoc c urr i ng bef or e t he c om m enc em ent of t he f ede r al i nve st i gati on m ayb e c o ve r e d “ i f t he c o nduc t w as pur po s e f ul l y c al c ul at e d, a nd lik e ly , to th w a r t t h e in v e s tig a tio n o r p r o s e c u tio n o f th e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic t i o n .” 3 U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 cm t. n .1
. A l exan der concedes t h at h e asked h i s father t o m ove t h e f i rearm s because h e t h ou gh t t h at authori t i es w ou l d se a rc h hi s r esi den ce. H ow ever, A l exan der argu es t h at h i s cond u ct on l y rel ated t o t h e st ate proceedi n g. A l exan der argu es t hat at t he t i m e he m ade t he phone c al l he w as not aw ar e of t he fed eral i nve s t i ga t i o n, a nd t hus he c o ul d no t ha ve w i l l f ul l y att em pt e d t o o bs t r uc t t he fe de r ali nve s t i ga t i o n o f t he of fe ns e of c o nvi c t i o n. Al e xa nde r a l s o a r gue s t hatt he p la in la n g u a g e o f U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 p r e v e n ts its a p p lic a tio n b e c a u s e it o n ly Case: 09-50200 Document: 00511067824 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 50200

The First, Se cond, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth , Ninth, Tenth and El eventhC ircuits 4 have all hel d th at obstructionof a state investigatio n base d onthe same facts as the eventu al feder al co nvic ti onqu alifi esf ore nh a n ce me nt u n de r U. S. S. G. § 3 C 1 .1
. United St a t esv . Con treras , 5 0 6F .3 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 9( 1 0 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7); United States v. Ayers , 416 F.3d 13 1, 134(2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); United States v. F rasier , 38 1 F. 3 d 10 9 7 , 10 9 9

– 1 1 0 0( 1 1 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4); United States v. Rober ts , 2 4 3F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 7

– 3 8( 6 thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); United States v. Imen ec , 193 F.3 d 206 , 20 9 5 ap pl i es t o obst ructi ve cond u ctrel ati n g t o the i n st an t of fen se of convi ct i on , here, p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e b a s e . W e f i n d U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3C 1. 1(A ) sati sf i ed. A l t h ou gh t h e f

ederal i n vest i gati on m a y n o t h a v e b e e n u n d e r w a y w h e n h e m a d e t h e p h o n e ca ll, w e h a v e p r e v io u s ly h el d i n an un pu bl i shed opi n i on t h at obst ructi on o f a stat e i n vest i gati on based
o n t he s am e fac t s a s t he e ve nt ual fe de r al c o nvi c t i o n qua l i f i e s f o r e nhan c e m e nt
ev e n if t h e obst ructi ve cond u ctocc u rred bef ore f ederal au t h ori t i es c om m en ced th e ir i n v e s t i g a tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. U pch u rch , 88 F
. A p p ’ x 7 9 4 , 79 6 ( 5 th C i r. 200 4) ( per curi am ) ( u n pu bl i shed ) ( ap pl yi n g U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3C 1 .1 w h e re a def endant at t em pt ed t o pe r suade hervi c t i m t o r ec ant and t he f ede r al i nve s t i ga t i o n ha d no t y e t b e gun b e c aus e she w as at t e m pt e d t o o bs t r uc t a ny in v e s tig a tio n in to th e co n d u c t a t is s u e ). W e a d op t U

pch u rch ’ s r eason i n g, an d f i n d that t h e enh a n cem en t app l i es w he n t he o bs t r uc t i o n o f t he s t at e i nve s t i ga t i o n i s ba s e d o n t he s am e fac t s a s t he
eve nt ual fede r alconvi c t i on, reg ar dl es s of w het her the fede r ali nves t i gat i on has
c om m enc ed. Thi s r ul i ng i s bas ed o n gui del i ne’ s fai l ure t o di sti n gu i sh an i nve s t i ga t i o n by s t at e o f f i c i al s f r o m an i nve s t i ga t i o n by fe de r al o f f i c i al s, and “recog n i ze [s] tha t st a te off i cers are au th orized to an d f req u en tl y d o inv estiga te crim i n a lcon d u ct t h a t ulti m a tel y is pro secu ted u n d er fed era ll a w . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v . S elf , 1 32 F. 3d 1 03 9, 1 04 2– 43 ( 4t h Ci r . 1 99 7)
. I n s o hol di ng, w e j o i n ni ne o f o ur si st er c i rcui t s. H ere, t h e st ate i n vest i gati on arose ou t of A l exan der’ s posses si on 4 Case: 09-50200 Document: 00511067824 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 50200

(3 d C ir
. 1 9 9 9); United States v. Lu ca , 1 8 3F .3 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 2

–2 3( 9 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9); Sel f , 13 2 F .3d at1 0 4 2

–4 3 ; United States v. Aded iran , 2 6 F .3 d 6 1 , 6 5( 8 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4); United States v. Emery , 991 F.2d 907 , 911– 12 (1st Cir . 1993). Onlythe Seve nthCircuit has hel d th at obstructionof ast atep ro ce edingd oes n otqu alify
. United States v. Perez , 50F .3d 3 96, 398–40 0 (7 th Cir. 1 9 9 5 ). Ho wev er , Perezrelied at lea st in part “on the temporal requirement of Rule 3C 1.1 that the obstructive co ndu ct o ccur ‘ d ur in g’ theinve stig atio n, prosecution , or sente nci ngof the instant offen se,” id. at39 9, whichh as since bee n amen ded. Th e Seve nthC ircuit has not cited Perezsince the 200 6 a mendment. 6 o f c o c a in e b a s e , a ls o s e r v e d a s th e b a s is fo r A le x a n d e r ’ s fe d e r a l co n v ic tio n . W e t he r e f o r e f i nd t hatAl e xa nde r a t t e m pt e d t o o bs t r uc t t he i n vest i ga t i o n o f t he i n st an t of

fen se. A l exan der al so argues t h at t h e di rect i on t o hid e th e fi rearm s w as not
s u ffic ie n tly r e l a te d to h is o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n , p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e b a s e . W e di sa gr ee . The P SR cont ai ns f i ndi ngs t hat A l exanderas ked hi s fat her t o g i ve at l eas t one of

the f i r ear m s t o Sm i t h, a know n drug de al er , and t hat A l exanderw as a p a s s e n g e r in S m ith ’ s v e h ic le w h e n p o lic e fo u n d c o c a in e b a s e . A le x a n d e r d id
n o t r e b u t t h e s e fin d in g s ; th u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s fr e e to a d o p t t h e m . S ee R easor , 541 F. 3d at 369. W e need not det er m i ne how c l ose l y th e obst r uct i ve c o n d u c t m u s t r e la te to th e co n d u c t u ltim a te ly c h a r g e d b e c a u s e th e lin k is cle a r ly p r e s e n t in th is c a s e : A le x a n d e r d ir e c te d h is fa th e r t o g iv e a f ir e a r m t o S m ith , a know n drug de al er , w i t h w hom A l exanderhad pr evi ous l y ass oc i at ed i n a dr ugr e la te d in c id e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R oberson , 872 F
. 2d 597 , 6 09– 10 (5t h C i r. 19 89 ) ( de c l i ni ng t o dec i de t he re qui r e d nex us be t w e e n ob s t r uc t i ve c o nduc t a nd t h e i n st an t of

fen se because the l i n k w as cl earl y present an d “t h e di st ri ctcourt f ou n d t h at R oberson w as t ryi n g t o obstr u ct i n vest i gati o n of a llof h i s con d u ct,
w i t ho ut r e g a r d f

o r whi c h o f

fe ns e s he was c o nc e a l i ng” )
. W e t he r e f o r e f i nd t hat Al e xa nde r ’ s c o nduc t r e l at e d t o t he “ o f fe ns e o f

c o nvi c t i o n a nd a ny rel e va nt
c o n d u c t ” u n d e r U. S
. S
. G. § 3 C 1. 1. Case: 09-50200 Document: 00511067824 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 50200

7 I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e f i n d t h at t h e di st ri ct court properl y ap pl i ed t h e obstr u ct i on of j u st i ce adj u st m en t
. W e t h eref ore af f i rm A l exan der’ s s en t en ce. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50200 Document: 00511067824 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/31/2010