United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50182

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Uriel Ignacio Cabral-Aleman, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-703-1 

______________________________

Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Uriel Ignacio Cabral-Aleman appeals the district court’s imposition of 

a two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to 

United States Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.1. The district court applied the 

enhancement because during his arrest, Cabral-Aleman (1) broke his cell 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 4, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50182 Document: 00517022182 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024
No. 23-50182

2

phone in half and then attempted to conceal it in the waistband of his pants,

and (2) attempted to strike an arresting federal agent. 

On appeal, Cabral-Aleman presents two arguments in support of his 

contention that the district court erred when it applied the § 3C1.1 

enhancement. First, he did not have the required intent to obstruct justice 

when he attempted to strike the federal agent. Second, the destruction of his 

cell phone contemporaneously with his arrest did not result in a material 

hinderance to the investigation. He concedes that review is limited to plain 

error because he did not object to the enhancement. 

To demonstrate plain error, Cabral-Aleman must show that (1) there 

is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable 

dispute; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, this court will 

exercise its discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant’s offense level is 

increased by two levels if he (1) “willfully obstructed or impeded, or 

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

to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of 

conviction, and (2) the obstructive conduct related to (A) the defendant’s 

offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (B) a closely related 

offense.” § 3C1.1. Because Cabral-Aleman destroyed his cell phone

contemporaneously with his arrest, its destruction alone is insufficient “to 

warrant an adjustment for obstruction unless it resulted in a material 

hindrance to the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense or 

the sentencing of the offender.” § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(D)). A material 

hindrance “requires, at the least, an actual, negative effect on either the 

Case: 23-50182 Document: 00517022182 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2024
No. 23-50182

3

course or result of the investigation.” United States v. Morales-Sanchez, 609 

F.3d 637, 641 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Cabral-Aleman’s challenge to the imposition of the enhancement 

based on his destruction of his cell phone is unavailing. The record reflects 

that (1) federal agents continued their investigation after arresting CabralAleman, and (2) by breaking his cell phone in half, Cabral-Aleman destroyed 

any evidence contained within it that could have been used in the 

investigation of the offense. In light of the facts set forth in the presentence 

report and reasonable inferences from those facts, see United States v. 

Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006), he fails to demonstrate that any 

error was clear or obvious, see Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. While Cabral-Aleman 

need not show that his specific challenge has been addressed in a prior 

decision, he “must at least show error in the straightforward applications of 

existing cases.” United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 291 (5th Cir. 2022) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s imposition of a twolevel sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to § 3C1.1

based on Cabral-Aleman’s intentional destruction of his cell phone. As such, 

we need not address Cabral-Aleman’s argument that he did not have the 

required intent to obstruct justice when he attempted to strike a federal agent.

Case: 23-50182 Document: 00517022182 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2024