FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 18, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 59 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 05 16 -SCB -AEP-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOR GE ESTANISLAO BACA-SANC HEZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Jo rg e Est an is la o B aca- San ch ez ap pe al s h is 57 -m on th sen te nc e fo r pr es en ce

in th e Uni te d S ta te s fo ll owi ng de po rta ti on subs eque ntto anag gr av at ed -fel on y co nv ic ti on , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a), (b )(2 ). He arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt cl earl y

erre d i n fa il in g t o app ly a two- le ve l ac cep ta nc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty reduc ti on to hi s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s o ffen se lev el , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. Bac a-Sa nc he z, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof Ni cara gu a, fi rs t en te redth e Uni te d St at es in Octo be r 19 82 . His app li cat io n fo r as y lu m was d en ie d i n Oct ob er 1 98 3, bu t h e d idno t l eav e th e Uni te d S ta te s v ol un ta ril y . In Fe brua ry 20 00 , he p le d no lo co nt en de re to th e ag gr av at edfel on y of p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a con vi ct ed fel on , andhe was d ep orte d t o Ni cara gu a in May 200 2. He re en te redth e Uni te d St at es lat er tha t year. In Oct ob er 2 00 9, fe de ral ag en ts cam e in to co nt actwith Bac a-Sanc he z whi le he was d et ai ne d a t a c ou nt y jail in Flo rid a. He was in di ct ed on on e co un t o f be in g fo un d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s fo ll owi ng de po rta ti on subs eque nt to anag gr av at ed -fel on y

co nv ic ti on , invi ol at io n o f § 1 32 6( a), (b )(2 ), an d pr oc eed edto tri al . The go ve rn m en t p res en te d s ix witne ss es at t ria l, thr ee o f who m Baca San ch ez cr os s- ex am in ed . He als o t es ti fie d o n h is own be ha lf, d es cri bi ng th e 219 80 s ci vi l warin Nica rag uain whi ch he all eg ed ly fou gh t, h is un su cces sf ul as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, an d h is de si re t o l iv e “ th e Am eri can way .” Whe n a sk ed whe th er h e h adreturne d t o t he Uni te d S ta te s v ol un ta ril y , he s ai d, “ The y m ak e m e, y oukn ow. The re’s t oo m uc h t ro ub le ov er the re. I h adfig ht in g t he re, an d t he gu y fig ht in g, s ai d t he y

wou ldki ll m e.” On c ro ss -ex am in at io n, h e ad m it te d t ha t h e h ad be ende po rte d. He s ai d a t fi rs t tha t h e d idno t kno w whet he r he was aco nv ic te d fel on , th enadm it te d t o h is pri or fel on ie s an d o ffer edjus ti fic at io ns forhi s co nduc t. He sa idth athe ha d re tu rn edto th e Uni te d S ta te s b ecau se itis saf e an d h is fam il y is he re. Whe n a sk edwhet he r he ha d s ou gh t p erm is si on to return t o t he Uni te d St at es , he s ta te d, “ I wan t t o, b utI was wai ti ng th e p as t 1 0 years.” The g ov ern m en t rei te rat edth athe ha d n otso ug htpe rm is si on , to whi ch Baca -San ch ez re pl ie d,

“ W el l, I ap ol og iz e fo r th at .” The ju ry fou ndBaca -San ch ez g ui lt y . The pro ba ti on off

ic e cal cu la te d ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 1 6, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (a), (b )(1 )(C) . It d idno t ap pl y anacce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty reduc ti on pu rs ua ntto § 3 E1.1 , on gro un ds th atBaca -San ch ez h adpl edno t g ui lt y , he ha d p ro ceed edto tri al , andth ere was no ot he r in fo rm at io n i nd ic at in g t ha t h e ha d a ccep te d re sp on si bi li ty. As Ba ca-S an ch ez was in cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory VI, he face d agu id el in e ran ge of 4 6- 57 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Bac a-Sa nc he z o bjec te d tha t h e was en ti tl edto a two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r 3acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity . At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , cou ns el st at edth atBaca San ch ez h adch os ento ex erci se hi s ri gh t t o t ria l ra th er tha n c on ced e b ecau se he fear s fo r hi s l ife if h e returns to hi s h om e co un try. Baca-Sa nc he z ad de d t ha t h e ha d l iv edin th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r al m os t 3 0 years a ndth athe ha d trie d t o c ha ng e hi s l ife , bu t h e “ go t i n t ro ub le ” an d wen t b ackto jail . He su gg es te d tha t h e m ig ht ha ve “ba d l uc k.” Cou ns el arg ue d t ha t Ba ca-S an ch ez h adne ve r de ni edth e el em en ts of t he off

en se an d h adco op erat edwith l aw en fo rcem en t. Sh e b el ie ve d th ata two -le ve l ac cep tanc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty redu ct io n was ap pr op ria te . The co urt fo un d t ha t Ba ca-S an ch ez ad m it te d t he ele m en ts of t he off en se whe n h e to okth e wit ne ss st an d andess en ti al ly ask edfora jury pard on , bu t p rio r to tri al , he d en ie d t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he off en se . He requi redth e co urt t o im pa ne l a ju ry

an d the go ve rn m en t t o i nt ro du ce s ix witne ss es . Add it io na ll y , th e co urt was “ no t s ur e th ere[ ha d] ev er b een an y . . . rem or se .” The c ou rt o ve rru le d th e o bjec ti on an d s en te nc edBaca -San ch ez t o 5 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. II.

“ W e rev ie w a de ni al of areduc ti on of s en te nc e fo r anacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

forcle ar erro r, an d t ha t fi nd in g i s en ti tl edto gre atde fere nc e o n rev ie w andsh ou ldno t b e d is tu rb edun le ss itis witho utfou nd at io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Kn ight , 56 2 F .3d13 14 , 13 22 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 1 92 (20 09 ) 4(quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . “ Thi s ad jus tm en t i s n otin te nd edto ap pl y to a de fen da ntwho pu ts th e g ov ern m en t t o i ts bu rd enof p ro of at t ria l b y

de nyin g t he es se nt ia l fa ctua l el em en ts of g ui lt , is co nv ic te d, an d o nl y th enadm it s g ui ltan d ex pr es se s re m or se .” § 3 E1.1 , comm en t. (n .2). In rare cir cu m st an ces , a de fen da nt who go es to tri al m ay

ne ve rth el es s cl earl y

de m on st rat e anacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

forhi s cr im in al co nduc t, s uc h a s wh ere the de fen da ntgo es to tri al to as se rt a ndpre se rv e co ns ti tu ti on al or l eg al ch al le ng es th atdo no t re la te to factua l gu il t. Id . In s uc h i ns ta nc es , th e d et erm in at io n o f whe th er the de fen da ntha s acce pt edres po ns ib il it y

wil l b e b as edpri m ari ly on h is pre tri al st at em en ts an d co nduc t. Id. The di stric t co urt d oe s n otcle arl y err i n d en y in g areduc ti onwher e th e de fen da ntco nt es ts hi s g ui ltof a ll of t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im an d a tt em

pt s t o m in im iz e h is rol e d es pi te am pl e p ro of to th e co ntrary, Uni te d Sta tes v. C ar ab al lo , 59 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), orwher e h e at te m pt s t o avo ida factua l de te rm in at io n o f gu il t b y cha ll en gi ng th e ev id en ce an d wai ti ng un ti l t he ev e o f tri al to st ip ul at e to th e el em en ts of t he cri m e, se e Kn ight , 56 2 F .3dat 1 32 8. Bac a-Sa nc he z wen t t o tria l, re qu iri ng th e g ov ern m en t t o c al l s ix witne ss es , th ree o f who m

Baca -San ch ez cr os s- ex am in ed . Desp it e wha te ve r in fo rm at io n h e m ig htha ve gi ve n l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers du rin g the in ve st ig at io n, h e d idno t 5st ip ul at e an y fact s s up po rti ng anele m en t o f th e o ffen se pri orto tri al . He do es no t su gg es t t ha t h e p ro ceed edto tri al on ly to p res erv e anap pe al of a n i ss ue su chas a co ns ti tu ti on al , leg al , or e vi de nt ia ry rul in g. Ra th er, h e so ug htto min im iz e h is co nduc t an d t o p ers ua de th e jury to a cqui t h im ba se d o n h is all eg edfearof returni ng to Nica rag ua . Cou ns el to ldth e se nt en ci ng co urt t ha t Ba ca-S an ch ez h ad ch os ento go to tri al rathe r th anco nc ed e h is gu il t b ecau se he th ou gh t an acqui tt al wou ldpre ve nthi s d ep orta ti on . The d is tri ctco urt d es cri be d B aca- San ch ez’s te st im on y as e ss en ti al ly a requ es t fo r a jury pard on , anditfou ndth atBaca San ch ez h adne ve r ex pr es se d re m or se forhi s co nduc t. The reco rdin di cat es th at he ne ve r ap ol og iz edor s ho wedco nt rit io n fo r hi s co nduc t, ex cep t t ha t, wh en pr es se d dur in g c ro ss -ex am in at io n, h e ap ol og iz edforha vi ng fai le d t o s eek pe rm is si on to return t o t he Uni te d S ta te s. Thu s, Ba ca-S an ch ez p utth e g ov ern m en t t o i ts pro of , den ie d t he ess en ti al el em en ts of t he off

en se un ti l wel l i nt o t he tri al , att em pt edto min im iz e h is co nduc t an d t o a vo ida de te rm in at io n o f fac tu al gu il t, an d a rg uabl y fai le d t o e xp res s rem or se . Se e § 3 E1.1 , comm en t. (n .2); Ca ra ba ll o , 59 5 F .3dat 1 23 3; Kn ight , 56 2 F.3 d a t 1 32 8. Un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fin di ng th atBaca -San ch ez h adfai le d t o a ccep t re sp on si bi li ty w it hi n t he m ean in g of § 3 E1.1 . Se e Kn ight , 56 2 F .3dat 1 32 8. 6Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Baca -San ch ez’s s en te nc e. AFFIRMED.

7