IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 to pleading guilty to a charge of being illegally present in the United

States following deportation, the appellant made an initial appearance before

the magistrate judge (MJ) and responded affirmatively when asked if his real

name was Francisco Ivan Arana-Ventura. (Arana-Ventura). However, when

interviewed by the probation officer following his plea, he revealed for the first

time that his true name was Santos Lucio Cornejo. The district court applied an

adjustment for obstruction of justice because Arana-Ventura had used a false

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 14, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

name before the MJ, and the district court also denied credit for acceptance of

responsibility.

Arana-Ventura contends that the district court clearly erred by denying

a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. He asserts that he provided

information that permitted investigators to learn all they needed to prosecute

and sentence him. He notes that the majority of his criminal history was

discoverable under the name “Arana-Ventura,” and he further notes that he

eventually provided his true name to the probation officer, which enabled

discovery of his remaining previous conviction. He argues that his conduct is

consistent with acceptance of responsibility and that his is an extraordinary case

in which conduct amounting to obstruction of justice does not indicate lack of

acceptance of responsibility. The parties dispute the standard of review, but we

need not decide the applicable standard because, as discussed below, AranaVentura cannot prevail 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 responsibility for his criminal

conduct.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008)

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4)). Only in “extraordinary cases” will

both adjustments apply. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4). The defendant bears the

burden of proving entitlement to the reduction. United States v. Thomas, 120

F.3d 564, 574-75 (5th Cir. 1997).

Because the sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a

defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, his analysis of this issue must be

afforded “great deference” on review. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5). Deferring to the

district court’s unique position, we examine the denial of a reduction for

acceptance of responsibility “under a standard of review even 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: 10/14/2013
No. 12-51283

Although Arana-Ventura ultimately provided his true name to authorities,

he concealed his identity until after he had pleaded guilty, and he used an alias

before the MJ and at his guilty plea hearing. This conduct served to conceal, at

least temporarily, his previous immigration conviction, and it warranted an

adjustment for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1, comment (n.4), which states

that the adjustment applies where the defendant “provid[es] materially false

information to a judge or magistrate.” United States v. McDonald, 964 F.2d 390,

392-93 (5th Cir. 1992). The fact that Arana-Ventura came forward with his real

name after he pleaded guilty does not make his an extraordinary case in which

credit for acceptance of responsibility is warranted even though an adjustment

for obstruction of justice applies. See United States v. Chung, 261 F.3d 536, 540-

41 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court’s denial of credit for acceptance of

responsibility must be upheld as it is not “without foundation.” See United

States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and footnote

omitted).

AFFIRMED.

3

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