* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10089

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALEX PEREZ

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-131-A

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alex Perez was convicted of possession of narcotics with intent to

distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, as well

as two aspects of his sentencing. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On the night of July 18, 2007, Officer T.L. Eddleman—a Fort Worth Police

Department Gang Enforcement officer—was patrolling a Fort Worth

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10089

1 Under the Texas disorderly conduct statute, “[a] person commits an offense if he

intentionally or knowingly . . . makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the

gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” TEX. PENAL CODE §

42.01(a)(2).

2

neighborhood notorious for gang violence. He was accompanied by a U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agent who was searching for

individuals wanted by ICE. According to Eddleman’s testimony at the

suppression hearing, the two officers were driving an unmarked vehicle with

deeply tinted windows preventing anyone outside the vehicle from seeing its

occupants. They observed a group of Hispanic males standing in the public

roadway in front of a residence that Eddleman knew was occupied by members

ofthe Varrio North Side (“VNS”) gang. Eddleman also knew that this house was

a focal point of violence because it was located in an area controlled by VNS’s

rival gang, Varrio Diamond Hill (“VDH”). Eddleman recognized one of the

Hispanic males as a documented VNS member. Perez, who was also standing

in front of the residence, is a documented VNS member as well, but Eddleman

did not recognize him as such before arresting him.

As the unmarked vehicle passed by, Perez flashed a VNS gang hand sign,

broke from the group, and took steps toward the car in a very aggressive

manner. Eddleman testified that such behavior is typical of how gang members

“claim their turf and instigate altercations.” After coordinating an approach of

the residence with other officers, Eddleman arrested Perez for disorderly

conduct.1 The officers requested proof of identification from Perez. According

to Eddleman’s testimony, Perez indicated that he had left his ID in his bedroom

and offered to lead officers into the residence to retrieve it. Eddleman retrieved

Perez’s driver’s license from the pocket of a pair of pants on the floor of the
No. 08-10089

3

bedroom, as directed by Perez. The pocket also contained $1,200 in cash. While

in the bedroom, Eddleman observed a clear plastic bag containing a white

powdery residue resembling cocaine in plain view on the floor. After obtaining

a search warrant for the residence, officers found large quantities of marijuana,

cocaine, and cutting agent, as well as significant amounts of cash and firearms.

Perez later waived his Miranda rights and admitted that the currency, cocaine,

and firearms seized from the house belonged to him. He was charged with

various narcotics and firearms offenses.

Perez filed a motion to suppress seeking exclusion of the evidence, arguing,

among other things, that his disorderly conduct arrest violated his First

Amendment rights. At the suppression hearing, Perez testified that, when the

unidentified vehicle drove by, he was able to see that its occupants were police

officers. He denied having made the VNS gang hand sign observed by

Eddleman. He also testified that he did not consent to the officers’ entry into his

residence after his arrest. The district court did not find Perez’s testimony to be

credible. It denied his motion to suppress, finding that Perez was not aware that

the vehicle was a police car, that he made the gang hand sign to provoke a

violent altercation, and that he voluntarily led the officers into the residence.

The district court also held that even if Perez did not violate Texas’s disorderly

conduct statute, a reasonable officer would have believed that such violation

occurred.

Perez entered a conditional plea of guilty the next day, reserving the right

to appeal two issues: whether his arrest was illegal because his conduct was

protected speech under the First Amendment, and whether police entry into the

residence was illegal and not voluntary. The district court sentenced Perez to

a total of 228 months of imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines; it
No. 08-10089

4

applied an obstruction of justice enhancementfor committing perjury during the

suppression hearing and refused to reduce Perez’s sentence for acceptance of

responsibility. Perez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress—stating First

Amendment grounds only—and the district court’s application of the two

sentencing adjustments.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Suppression of Evidence

Perez contends that his arrest for disorderly conduct under § 42.01(a)(2)

of the Texas Penal Code was illegal because his gang hand sign was protected

speech under the First Amendment. Importantly, Perez does not challenge the

constitutionality of § 42.01(a)(2). As he correctly notes, the Supreme Court has

recognized that the language of the statute was “designed to track the ‘fighting

words’ exception” to the First Amendment set forth in Chaplinsky v. New

Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462 n.10

(1987) (discussing § 42.01(a)(1), which covers verbal disorderly conduct and uses

the same language as § 42.01(a)(2), the disorderly conduct gesture subsection);

see also Coggin v. State, 123 S.W.3d 82, 87 (Tex. App. 2003) (holding that “the

conduct proscribed under section 42.01(a)(2) falls within the ‘fighting words’

exception” to the First Amendment). Instead, the core of Perez’s argument is

that he did not violate § 42.01(a)(2) because his hand gesture did not amount to

“fighting words.” 

Perez’s appeal thus focuses exclusively on the alleged violation of

§ 42.01(a)(2). It ignores the district court’s alternative holding that “whether or

not the conduct that Officer Eddleman described violated Section 42.01 of the

Texas Penal Code”—i.e., whether or notthe gang hand sign constituted “fighting
No. 08-10089

2 Perez addressed the good faith exception holding in his reply brief—after it was raised

by the government—and argued that it was not applicable to an arrest in violation of the First

Amendment. However, “[a]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived” and

will not be considered by this court. Teal Energy USA, Inc. v. GT, Inc., 369 F.3d 873, 879 n.18

(5th Cir. 2004). 

5

words”—“a reasonable officer would believe that such a violation did occur.”

This holding applies the so-called “good faith exception”to the exclusionary rule,

under which “evidence is not to be suppressed where it is discovered by officers

in the course of actions that are taken in good faith and in the reasonable,

though mistaken, belief that they are authorized.” United States v. De

Leon-Reyna, 930 F.2d 396, 400 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (internal quotation and

alteration omitted). Perez failed to discuss this application of the good faith

exception in his initial brief to this court;2 he therefore waived any challenge to

it. See, e.g., R.R. Mgmt. Co. v. CFS La. Midstream Co., 428 F.3d 214, 220 n.3

(5th Cir. 2005) (noting that where an appellant challenges only one of the

district court’s alternative holdings, his argument that the alternative holding

was in error is waived). Because Perez waived his challenge to the district

court’s alternative holding, his appeal on the suppression issue necessarily fails.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Perez’s motion to suppress

based on the good faith exception, and need not address the merits of his First

Amendment argument.

B. Application of Sentencing Guidelines

(1) Standard of Review

This court“review[s]the district court’s interpretation or application of the

Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United

States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir. 2007). A finding of obstruction of
No. 08-10089

6

justice under Section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines is a factual finding

reviewed for clear error, and therefore will be affirmed if it is “plausible in light

ofthe record as a whole.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th

Cir. 2008). Further, in reviewing a finding of obstruction of justice, this court

“give[s] deference to the credibility determinations of the district court.” Id.

With respect to a district court’s decision not to award a reduction in offense

level for acceptance of responsibility under Section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing

Guidelines, the standard of review is even “more deferential than the clearly

erroneous standard;” reversal is warranted only when the district court’s denial

of the reduction is “without foundation.” Id. at 211 (quotation omitted).

(2) Analysis

(a) Obstruction of Justice

Perez challenges the two-level enhancement of his sentence for obstruction

of justice. Under Section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the enhancement

is applicable “[i]f (A)the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted

to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the

investigation, prosecution, or sentencing ofthe instant offense of conviction, and

(B)the obstructive conduct related to (i)the defendant’s offense of conviction and

any relevant conduct. . . .” The commentary to Section 3C1.1 provides examples

of conduct that justifies the enhancement—including “committing, suborning,

or attempting to suborn perjury.” U.S.SENTENCING GUIDELINESMANUAL§ 3C1.1

cmt. n.4(b). To impose the enhancement on the basis of perjury, “the court must

find that the defendant gave ‘false testimony concerning a material matter with

the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion,
No. 08-10089

7

mistake, or faulty memory.’” United States v. Reed, 26 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir.

1994) (quoting United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993)). 

The district court found that Perez committed perjury when he testified

at the suppression hearing that he did not “flash any gang signs” during the

evening he was arrested—a statement that directly contradicts Eddleman’s

testimony and the factual findings of the district court. The district court noted

that Perez was under oath when he gave the testimony, and that his false

statement was not a mistake or accident, but was made intentionally. Further,

the district court found that Perez’s false testimony was material and relevant

to the case, because it was intended to influence the court to rule in his favor. 

See United States v. Como, 53 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir. 1995) (“‘Material,’ as defined

in the commentary to the sentencing guidelines, ‘means evidence, fact,

statement, or information that, if believed, would tend to influence or affect the

issue under determination’” (quoting U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL §

3C1.1 cmt. n.5)). It is well-established that, under these circumstances, a

defendant’s commission of perjury at a suppression hearing supports the

application of a Section 3C1.1 enhancement. See id. at 91; Reed, 26 F.3d at 531.

Perez does not dispute the falsity or materiality of his testimony at the

suppression hearing, nor does he argue that his false statements were

unintentionally made. Rather, Perez contends that the enhancement was

improper because it resulted from his exercise of his constitutional right to

challenge the evidence against him on First Amendment grounds. In support of

his position, Perez quotes the following commentary to Section 3C1.1:

Limitations on Applicability of Adjustment.—This provision is not

intended to punish a defendant for the exercise of a constitutional

right. A defendant’s denial of guilt (other than a denial of guilt
No. 08-10089

8

under oath that constitutes perjury), refusal to admit guilt or

provide information to a probation officer, or refusal to enter a plea

of guilty is not a basis for application of this provision. 

U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3C1.1 cmt. n.2. Clearly, this language

does not preclude defendants committing perjury from being subject to the

obstruction of justice enhancement—in fact,the commentary expressly excludes

“denial of guilt under oath that constitutes perjury”from its protection. Further,

the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “a defendant’s right to testify does

not include a right to commit perjury.” Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 96. The district

court’s application of Section 3C1.1 was not punishing Perez’s attempt to

suppress allegedly unconstitutional evidence or to assert his First Amendment

rights. It was the consequence of Perez’s perjury at the suppression hearing—a

well-recognized justification for imposing the enhancement. Accordingly, the

district court’s imposition of the obstruction of justice enhancement was proper.

(b) Acceptance of Responsibility

Perez argues that, by pleading guilty to the drug charges against him, he

demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for his offense and thus should have

been granted a reduction in his sentence under Section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing

Guidelines. Ordinarily, conduct resulting in an enhancement for obstruction of

justice “indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his

criminal conduct.” U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4; see

also Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211. Only in “extraordinary cases” will both

adjustments apply. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4.

Perez cites commentary to § 3E1.1, which provides that a defendant’s

“constitutional challenge to a statute or a challenge to the applicability of a

statute to his conduct” does not preclude a defendant from consideration for a
No. 08-10089

9

Section 3E1.1 adjustment. Id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2. This commentary is intended

to protect defendants who accept responsibility but nevertheless go to trial in

order “to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to factual guilt,” id., not

defendants who commit perjury. Perez has not shown that this case “rise[s] to

the level of being an ‘extraordinary case’” that would warrant reducing his

sentence despite his obstruction of justice. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211

(quotation omitted). Therefore, there was adequate foundation for the district

court to deny a § 3E1.1 adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See id. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.