[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14476

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00200-WTM-GRS-10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONNIE QUIJANO, 

a.k.a. Ronnie, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(June 5, 2013)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Ronnie Quijano appeals his 41-month sentence, imposed at the low end of 

the applicable guideline range, after he pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense 

Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

of one count for conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and 

distribute 50 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, 

Quijano argues that the district court should not have denied him credit for 

acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) because he admitted to all 

elements of the offense to which he was pleading and later offered assistance to the 

government for a codefendant’s trial. For those same reasons, Quijano also argues 

that the district court wrongly enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice 

under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. He concludes that the district court’s enhancement of his 

sentence for obstruction of justice and failure to consider his acceptance of 

responsibility render his sentence unreasonable. After thorough review, we affirm.

A district court’s determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) is a finding of 

fact that is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless 

clearly erroneous. United States v. Frank, 247 F.3d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Quijano did not raise the obstruction of justice question below, so we review that 

finding for plain error. United States v. Johnson, 694 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 

2012). Plain error occurs when there is an error that is plain or obvious, affecting 

the defendant’s substantive rights and that seriously affects the fairness, integrity 

or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. We review sentences for 

Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Irey, 612 

F.3d 1160, 1186 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

A sentencing court may decrease the offense level by two if the defendant 

clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Entering a 

guilty plea and truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of 

conviction, while also truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any additional 

relevant conduct, is significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility. Id. cmt. 

n.3. However, this evidence may be outweighed by conduct inconsistent with such 

acceptance. Id. Conduct resulting in an enhancement for obstruction of justice 

ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility. Id. cmt. n.4.

The Sentencing Guidelines permit a court to increase the offense level by 

two if the defendant obstructed justice with respect to the investigation, 

prosecution, or sentencing of the offense, and the obstructive conduct related to the 

offense or a closely related offense. Id. § 3C1.1. Examples of such conduct 

include committing perjury or providing materially false information to a judge or 

probation officer conducting a presentence investigation. Id. cmt. n.4.

A sentence can be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly 

calculates the guideline range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 

586, 597 (2007). If the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, 

we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. Id. Although we do 

Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

not presume that sentences within the guideline range, like the one here, are 

reasonable, we do ordinarily expect them to be. United States v. Joseph, No. 09-

11984, slip op. 1044, 1068 (11th Cir. Feb. 21, 2013). When sentencing, courts 

must consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of the offense and 

the history and characteristics of the defendant, as well as the need for the sentence 

imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, 

provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(1)-(2), (6).

Quijano’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. His false 

statements to the district court and probation office plainly constitute obstruction of 

justice and clearly demonstrate that he did not accept responsibility, even though 

he pleaded guilty and offered assistance to the government. These false statements 

related to drug use and his offense conduct, and therefore he was properly denied 

the potential benefit of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. His false 

statements also significantly reduced the value of his offered testimony to the 

government because they subjected him to impeachment, and therefore the district 

court’s obstruction of justice enhancement was not plainly erroneous. The district 

court properly calculated the applicable guideline range, rendering his sentence 

procedurally reasonable. Moreover, given Quijano’s criminal history and the 

Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

extensive nature of his criminal activity here, the need to promote respect for the 

law, and his false statements, his low-end guideline sentence cannot be said to be 

substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion, and we 

affirm Quijano’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 5 of 5