United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 21-50777

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Hector Ivan Olivo, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:20-CR-1327-8 

______________________________

Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Hector Ivan Olivo pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to 

transport illegal aliens resulting in serious bodily injury or placing lives in 

jeopardy, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (B)(iii). He was 

sentenced to 37 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Olivo

challenges his sentence on appeal.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50777 Document: 00516768404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 21-50777

2

Olivo contends that the district court erroneously applied a two-level 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. He asserts that the offense conduct 

did not recklessly create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to 

another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. Also, 

he maintains that any conduct that could warrant the enhancement was not 

committed or caused by him. Because Olivo did not assert the instant claims 

in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Melendez, 

57 F.4th 505, 507 (5th Cir. 2023).

The record reflects that the truck in which Olivo was a passenger did 

not fully stop for inspection at an immigration checkpoint; ignored the orders 

of border patrol agents and accelerated through the checkpoint; led agents on 

a high-speed chase during which the car swerved into oncoming traffic while 

traveling at speeds exceeding 90 miles per hour; continued to move after tiredeflation devices had punctured its tires; and stopped after crashing through 

a fence on private property. This conduct provides a basis for the adjustment. 

See United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. 

Jimenez, 323 F.3d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 2003). While Olivo alleges that he only

was a passenger in the truck, the record supports that he was involved in the 

alien-smuggling enterprise and that, after the crash, he not only directed the 

illegal aliens to run into the nearby brush but also fled on foot along with the 

driver of the car in an effort to hide from the pursuing agents. These facts 

suggest that Olivo participated in the chase and at least aided and abetted the 

conduct of the driver. See United States v. Lima-Rivero, 971 F.3d 518, 520-21

& n.1 (5th Cir. 2020); see also § 3C1.2, comment. (n.5).

Additionally, Olivo argues that the district court erroneously denied a 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We

review a district court’s determination of acceptance of responsibility with 

more deference than ordinary factual determinations considered under the 

clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Brigman, 953 F.2d 906, 909 (5th 

Case: 21-50777 Document: 00516768404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 21-50777

3

Cir. 1992). We will affirm the decision to deny a reduction under § 3E1.1 

unless it is without foundation. United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525 

(5th Cir. 1999). 

Olivo asserts that he timely pleaded guilty to the charged offense and 

admitted to a factual basis that set forth each element of the crime. Further, 

he notes that he was cooperative and forthcoming after his arrest and gave a 

statement to agents in which he admitted his guilt and offered details about 

the smuggling organization. The record also reflectsthat he gave a statement 

for purposes of the presentence report in which he admitted his involvement 

in the offense and apologized for his conduct. 

However, Olivo is not entitled to the enhancement solely because of 

his guilty plea or admissions. See United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 

407, 410 (5th Cir. 2020); § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). The record supports that 

the district court construed Olivo’s conduct and admissions as suggesting a 

lack of candor and not showing sincere contrition. The district court found, 

inter alia, that he did not accept responsibility for the acts resulting in serious 

bodily injury or placing lives in jeopardy for purposes of § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iii). 

We owe great deference to the district court’s determination as to whether 

Olivo honestly and sincerely admitted to having committed the conduct that 

comprised the offense. See Brigman, 953 F.2d at 909; United States v. Alfaro, 

919 F.2d 962, 968 (5th Cir. 1990). While Olivo suggests that his failure to 

give factual details is due to his background and personal characteristics, he 

has not shown that his failure to accept responsibility was due to those factors 

or that the district court did not consider those factors in determining that no

reduction was warranted. See United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 551 (5th 

Cir. 1993). The determination that Olivo failed to accept responsibility was 

not entirely without foundation. See Anderson, 174 F.3d at 525.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50777 Document: 00516768404 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2023