# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 20 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant on io Mo ral es Ch av ez

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 6
Fi le d: Aug us t 1 5, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Ant on io Mo ral es Ch av ez (Mor al es ) cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n fi nd in g 1

he ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce an d d id no t ac cep t re sp on si bi li ty for h is cri m es . W e d is ag ree.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn R. Tun he im be cam e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St a t e s 1

Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta on Ju ly 1, 20 15

.I. BACKGRO UND

Mo ral es was cau gh t se ll in g m et ha m ph et am in e in Mel ro se , Mi nn es ot a, whe n

h is bu y er tu rn ed ou t to be a po li ce in fo rm an t. A f ew da y s la te r, he was ch a r g e d b y

co m pl ai nt an d rel eas ed on bo nd

. He th en le ft fo r Mex ic o. He sa y s he wen t to ta ke

care of hi s m ot he r, who ha d c a n c e r a n d w a s faci ng su rg ery, an d he di d no t te ll th e

au th or it ie s b ecau se he was a frai d t he y wou ld no t l et hi m

go . That was i n 2 00 4.

Mo ral es ret ur ne d to th e Uni te d St a t e s in 20 07

, le ft ag ai n, an d cam e ba ck in

20 08

. Bo th ti m es he reen te red th e co un t r y, h e was in sp ect ed an d ad m it te d at th e
b o r d e r aft er sh owi ng hi s la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t card

. Afte r hi s ret ur n, he l i v e d

an d wor ke d in Cal ifo rn ia

, whe re he pa id ta xe s an d ch il d su pp or t un de r hi s real na m e.

In 20 1 3

, M o r a le s se nt hi s na m e an d fin ge rp rin ts to th e FBI fo r a cri m in al

ba ck gr ou nd ch eck to se e if he ha d an o u t s t a n d i n g warra nt

. He di d. A bo nd

2

rev oc at io n he ari ng ha d be en sc he du le d an d a warra nt is su ed fo r hi s arre st aro un d th e

ti m e he ab sc on de d to Mex ic o in 20 04

. Mo ral es was th en de ta in ed in th e East ern
Dis tri ct of Cal i f

o r n ia an d ev en tu al ly tra ns ferr ed ba ck to th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a,
whe re he st oo d tri al an d was fo un d gu il ty of co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e, po ss es si ng wit h

th e in te n t to di st rib ut e, an d di st rib ut in g m et ha m ph et am in e, se e 21 U.S.C.
§§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 ), 84 6; see als o 1 8 U.S.C. § 2(a ) (ac co m pl ic e li ab il it y ).

In de te rm ini ng Mo ral es ’s ad vi so ry se nt en ce un de r the U nit ed St at es Se nte nc ing

Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s)

, th e di st ric t co ur t in crea se d hi s of fen se le ve l by

two le ve ls fo r ob st ru ct in g jus ti ce, se e U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1

, an d refu se d to de crea se it by

two le ve ls fo r acce pt in g res po ns ib il it y, s e e id

. § 3E1 .1(a ). Mo ral es un su cces sf ul ly

So m e of th e d a t e s i n th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ br ie fs wit h res pe ct to th is 2

ch ap te r of Mo ral es ’s st or y do no t li ne up

. A s f a r a s w e can te ll

, th e in co ns is te nc y
st em s fro m a pa rag rap h in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t th at m is ta ke nl y da te d

Mo ral es ’s ba ck gr ou nd ch eck to 20 14 rat he r th an 20 13

. W e di sc ern no act ua l di sp ut e

or un cert ai nt y

ab ou t h ow l on g M or al es was o n t he lam

.

-2

-co nt es te d bo th po in ts

. The Gui de li ne s calc ul at io ns res ul te d in an ad vi so ry ran ge of

1 2 1 t o 1 5 1 m on th s in pr is on

. The di st ric t co ur t va rie d do wnwar d an d se nt en ce d

Mo ral es to 96 m on th s in pr is on an d th ree y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. On ap pe al

, se e

28 U.S.C. § 12 91 (ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ), Mo ral es ch al le ng es th e ru li ng s on th e two

ad jus tm en ts

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

Wit h res pe ct to th e ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce ad

jus tm en t, Mo ral es ’s arg um en t is

no t abo ut wha t he d id —i n sh or t, j um pe d bo nd an d th en li ve d abr oa d and in an ot he r

st at e fo r ne arl y ni ne y ears —b ut whe th er hi s co nd uc t sa ti sf ie s th e rel ev an t se ct io n of

th e Gui de li ne s. W e rev ie w th at le ga l qu es ti on de no vo

. See Uni te d St at es v. Mas he k,

40 6 F .3d 10 12 , 10 17 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

Gui de li ne s § 3C 1.1 (1 ) cal ls fo r a two -le ve l in crea se if “ th e de fen da nt wil lfu ll y
ob st ru ct ed or im

pe de d, or a t te m

pt ed to ob st ru ct or im

pe de

, th e ad m in is tra ti on of
ju st ic e wit h res pe ct to th e in ve st ig at io n, pr os ecu ti on , or se nt en ci ng of th e [d efen da nt ’s] in st an t of

fen se of co nv ic ti on .” Mo ral es sa y s hi s co nd uc t was no t

wil lfu l

, b e c a u s e he le ft to be wit h hi s si ck m ot he r, no t to in te rfer e wit h th e

in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of hi s cas e. Cf., e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Co ll in s, 75 4 F.3 d

62 6, 62 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ In or de r to act wil lfu ll y [fo r pu rp os es of § 3C 1.1 ], th e
de fen da nt m

us t ‘con sc io us ly act wit h th e pu rp os e of ob st ru ct in g jus ti ce.’” (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. W at ts

, 94 0 F.2 d 33 2, 33 2- 33 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ))). Bu t “ [a] di st ric t co ur t

can fin d th at a de fen da nt co ns ci ou sl y act s wit h th e pu rp os e of ob st ru ct in g jus ti ce”— th at is

, act s wil lfu l l y— “w he n hi s ‘m is co nd uc t oc cu rs wit h kn owl ed ge of

an in ve st ig at io n, or at le as t wit h a co rrec t be li ef th at an i n v e s t i ga ti on is pr ob ab ly

un de rway .’ ” Id

. at 62 9- 30 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dier li ng , 13 1 F.3 d 72 2, 73 8 (8 th

Ci r. 19 97 )). Afte r be in g arre st ed

, co ns en ti ng to se arch es of hi s tra il er ho m e an d car,

pr ov id in g a de ta il ed acc o u n t o f h is act iv it ie s to a po li ce in ve st ig at or , an d be in g
ch arg ed by co m

pl ai nt

, Mo ral es un qu es ti on ab ly kn ew th e au th or it ie s were bu il di ng a

cas e ag ai ns t hi m

. W ha te ve r Mo ral es ’s reas on s fo r in it ia ll y go in g to Mex ic o, th ey do

-3

-n o t ex pl ai n st ay in g away fo r y ears aft erwar d. In de ed

, Mo ral es ’s ev en tu al de ci si o n

to ha ve th e FBI ch eck fo r ou ts ta nd in g warra nt s de m on st rat es h i s a w a ren es s th at

,

no twi th st an di ng hi s co ns is te nt us e of hi s real na m e, hi s un ex pl ai ne d di sa pp eara nc e

an d co n t i n ue d ab se nc e fro m Mi nn es ot a m ig ht be st an di ng in th e way of effo rts to

br in g h im to jus ti ce.

Mo ral es po in ts ou t th at an ap pl ic at io n no te to § 3C 1.1 li st s “ wil lfu ll y fai li ng

to ap pe ar, as or de re d

, fo r a jud ic ia l pr oc eed in g ” a s an “ ex am pl e[] of th e types of

c on du ct to whi ch th is ad jus tm en t ap pl ie s.” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 ap pl ic at io n n

. 4 ( E)
(em ph as is ad de d)

. Bec au se he le ft th e co un try be fo re be in g or de red to m ak e an y

ap pe aran ces , Mo ral es reas on s, hi s co nd uc t fal ls ou ts id e th at pr ov is io n. Tha t m ay be

tru e, bu t t h e li st of ex am

pl es in th e no te is ex pl ic it ly “ no n- ex ha us ti ve ,” id

., an d we

ha ve rep eat ed ly up he ld ad jus tm en ts un de r § 3C 1.1 fo r de fen da nt s who

, li ke Mo ral es , di d no t ha ve an y pr oc eed in gs sc he du le d whe n th ey le ft to wn. See, e.g ., Bi ll in gs le y , 3

16 0 F.3 d at 50 7; Uni te d St at es v. Eag le

, 13 3 F.3 d 60 8, 61 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). And th e

cru x of ho w Mo ral es ob st ru ct ed jus t ic e was no t jus t th at he sk ip pe d a pa rti cu la r
he ari ng , b ut t h a t by l iv in g ab ro ad an d th en res et tl in g acro ss th e co un try h e de la y ed

th e res ol ut io n o f hi s case by alm os t a d ecad e. The t wo- le ve l i nc reas e was jus ti fie d.

W e are al so un pe rs ua de d by Mo ral es ’s th eo ry th at be cau se he ha d no t y et be en 3

in di ct ed hi s de pa rtu re fo r Mex ic o was an al og ou s to “ av oi di ng or fle ei ng fro m arre st ,”
whi ch an ot he r ap pl ic at io n no te sa y s ge ne ral ly sh ou ld no t tri gg er an of fen se -le ve l
in crea se

. See U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 ap pl ic at io n n.5 (D). W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th a t f l i g h t

“ do es no t warra nt en ha nc em en t be cau se it is m or e of an in it ia l in s t i n c t i v e reac ti on th an wil lfu l ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce” an d “ ge ne ral ly oc cu rs wit ho ut kn owl ed ge th at an in ve st ig at io n is un de rway .” Uni te d St at es v. Hare, 49 F.3 d 44 7, 45 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ).
The sa m e is no t tru e of Mo ral es ’s co nd uc t, so hi s an al og y fai ls

, an d in an y ev en t hi s
po si ti on is fo recl os ed by ou r pa st de ci si on s, se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Bi ll in gs le y , 16 0
F.3 d 50 2, 50 7 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (co nc lu di ng “ th e po st -arr es t, pr e-i nd ic tm en t fli gh t of

a de fen da nt who is no t in cu st od y fal ls wit hi n Sect io n 3C 1.1 ”); Hare, 49 F.3 d at 45 0,
45 3.

-4

-As fo r th e two -le ve l d ecre as e Mo ral es so ug ht , gen eral ly “ [c]on du ct res ul ti ng

in an en ha nc em en t un de r § 3C 1.1

. . . i nd ic at es th at th e de fen da nt ha s n o t a c cep te d

res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s cri m in al c o n du ct .” U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1 ap pl ic at io n n.4

. The

ad jus tm en t is al so us ua ll y in ap pl ic ab le “ to a de fen da nt who ,” li ke Mo ral es , “ pu ts th e

go ve rn m en t to it s bu rd en of pr oo f at tri al by d en y in g th e es se n t i a l f a c t ua l el em en ts

of gu il t.” Id

. § 3E1 .1 ap pl ic at io n n.2

. The re m ay be “ rare ” ex cep ti on s to th es e ru le s

in “ ex tra or di na ry cas es ,” id

. § 3E1 .1 ap pl ic at io n nn .2, 4, bu t Mo ral es ha s no t

co nv in ced us it was a cle ar er ro r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t no t to reco gn iz e hi s as su ch a

sp eci al cas e. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Mu ro , 35 7 F.3 d 74 3, 74 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (p er

cu ria m ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). Mo ral es ’s co op erat io n wit h th e po li ce bo th ti m es he

was cau gh t do es no t ou twei gh th e y ears of ob st ru ct io n he cau se d in be twee n. Cf. id

.
at 74 4- 45 (u ph ol di ng th e de ni al of an ad jus tm en t be cau se th e de fen da nt “ wil lfu ll y
ch os e th e co ur se of co nd uc t th at ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce in st ead of ch oo si ng ot he r op ti on s,”

“ fai le d to ta ke an y affi rm at iv e act io n to co nf irm hi s acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y aft er
he fle d,” an d “ m erel y pr ov id ed an ex cu se fo r hi s fli gh t” ). And Mo ral es ’s ex pl an at io n

th at he fel t co m

pe ll ed to go to tri al de sp it e ack no wled gi ng hi s gu il t be cau se “ an y pl ea

ag reem en t wou ld

. . . h av e li ke ly req ui red [h im ] to ag ree th at he was no t en ti tl ed to

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y un de r U.S.S.G. §3 E1.1 ” an y way , be si de s be in g en ti rel y

sp ecu la ti ve , app aren tl y

res ts on th e p rem is e th at th e on ly way he co ul d p le ad gu il ty

was by en te rin g in to a pl ea ba rg ai n wit h th e go ve rn m en t, whi ch is si m pl y fal se , se e,

e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Trevi no , No. 15 -1 53 4, __ _ F.3d

__ _, __ _, 20 16 W L 38 44 85 1,

at *1 (8t h C ir. J ul y

14 , 20 16 ) (g ui lt y

pl ea wi th ou t p le a ag reem en t); see als o F ed . R.

Cri m . P. 11 (a)( 1) (“ A def en da nt m ay

pl ead

. . . gu il ty.”).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de te rm in i ng th at th e ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce
ad jus tm en t di d ap pl y to Mo ral es an d th e acce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty ad jus tm en t di d

no t. Mo ral es ’s sen te nc e is affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-