### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51283 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FRANCISCO IVAN ARANA-VENTURA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-80-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Prior t o pleading guilty to a charge of b eing illegally present in the United States following deportation, the appellant made a n i n i t ial appearance before the m a g i s t r a t e judge (MJ) and responded affirmatively when asked if his real

name was Francisco Ivan Arana-Ventura. (Arana-Ventur a)

. H owever, when interviewed by t h e probation officer following his plea, he revealed for the first time that his t rue n ame was Santos Lucio Cornejo. The district c o urt applied an adjustment for obst r u c tion of justice because Arana-Ventura had u sed a false U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 14, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51283 Document: 00512405642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2013No. 12-51283

name before the MJ, and the district c ourt also denied c r e d it for acceptance of responsibility. Arana-Ventura contends t hat the district court clearly erred by denying

a reduction for a cceptance of responsib i l i t y . He asserts that he p rovided information that permitted i nvestigators to learn all t hey need e d to prosecute and sentenc e him. He n otes that the majority of his criminal h istory was discoverable u nder the name “Arana-Ventura,” and he further notes that he eventually provided his t rue name t o t h e probation officer, which enabled discovery of his remaining p revious conviction. He argues t hat his conduct is consistent with acceptance of re s p o nsibility a nd that his is an e xtraordinary case in which conduct a mounting to obstruction of justice does not indicate lack of acceptance o f r esponsibility. The parties dispute the standard of review, but we need not decide the applicable sta n d a r d because, as discussed below, AranaVentura cannot p revail even assuming that the issue was preserved. See United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). Conduct resulting in an enhancement for obstruction of justice ordinarily “indicates that the defendant has not accepted re s p o n s i b i l ity f or his c riminal conduct.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 2 11 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4)). Only in “extraordinary cases” will both a djustments apply. § 3E1.1, c o mment. (n.4). The d efendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to the reduction. United States v. Thomas , 120 F.3d 564, 574-75 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the s e n t e n c i n g judge is in a unique position to evaluate a d e f endant’s acceptance of responsibility, his analysis of this issue mu s t b e afforded “great deference” on review. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5). Deferring to the district cou r t ’ s unique position, we examine the denial o f a r e duction for acceptance o f r esponsibility “under a standard of r eview e ven more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Outlaw , 319 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2 Case: 12-51283 Document: 00512405642 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2013No. 12-51283

Although Ar a n a - Ve nt u r a u l ti m at e ly p r ovi d e d hi s true name to authorities, he concealed his identity until after he had pleaded guilty, and he u sed an alias before t he MJ and at his guilty plea hearing. This conduct served to conceal, at least temporaril y , h i s previous immigration c onviction, and it warranted an adjustment for obstruction of justice u nder § 3C1.1, comment (n.4), which states that the adjustment applies where the defendant “provid[es] materially false information to a j udge o r magistrate.” United States v. M cDonald , 964 F.2d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir. 1992). The f act that Arana-Ventura came forward with his real

name after he pleaded guilty does not make his a n extraordinary case in which credit for acceptance of responsibility is warranted e ven though an a djustment for obstruction o f justice applies. See United States v. Chung , 261 F.3d 5 36, 540- 41 ( 5th Cir. 2001). The d i s t r i c t c ourt’s denial o f credit for acceptance of responsibility must be u pheld as it is not “without f oundation.” Se e U

n i t ed States v. Solis , 299 F.3d 420, 4 58 (5th C i r . 2002) (quotation marks and footnote omitted). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-51283 Document: 00512405642 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/14/2013