### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-31024 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. OSCAR RENE PINTO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:09-CR-56-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Oscar Rene Pinto appeals the con c u r r e n t 9 6

- m o n t h t e rms of imprisonment imposed after he was convicted of two counts of assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, a n d interfering with a federal officer. See 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). He a r g u e s t hat the district court erred in calculating his advisory sentencing guidelines range when it increased his offense level for obstruction

o f j u s t i c e and denied a reduction in his offense level for acceptance o f responsibility. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary10 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-31024 Document: 00511719749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2012No. 10-31024

As a general rule, we review criminal sentences for procedural and substantive r e a sonableness. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). We review a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelin e s de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008)

. A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the r e c o r d as a whole. Id. We will affirm the denial of a reduction for ac c e p tance of responsibility unless it is “without foundation.” United States v. Anderson , 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 199 9). Pinto has not shown that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level for obstruction o f j u s t i c e . See U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.1(A), & 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(b)). The court found that Pinto wilfully gave false testimony under oath and those findings are supported by the record. See United States v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. 87, 94-95 (1993). The testimony was material even though Pinto admitted facts at trial sufficient to support his convictions, because the relevant conduct he f a lsely denied was likely to influence the sentencing determination. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 200 8). Pinto als o h a s n o t shown that the district court erred in denying him a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See § 3E1.1. Pinto 1 elected to go to trial where he denied relevant conduct, attempted to minimize his culpability, and c ommitted perjury. A reduction for acceptance of responsi b ility is not appropriate under such circumstances. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); United States v. Solis , 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Cabrera , 288 F.3d 163, 175-77 (5th Cir. 200 2 )

. T he district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not without foundation. See Anderson , 174 F.3d at 525. AFFIRMED.

Pinto ass ert s, in the cour se of arguing that he acc ept ed res pons ibili ty for his off ens e, 1 that the dis tri ct cour t err e d b y rejec ting his guilty ple a. Ho we ver, he has wa ived any chall enge to that dec isi on by fai ling to ade quate ly add res s it in his app ellat e brie f. See Uni ted States v. Sc roggi ns , 599 F.3d 433 , 446- 47 ( 5th Cir. 201 0); F E D

. R. A P P

. P. 28(a )( 9)( A). 2 Case: 10-31024 Document: 00511719749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2012