Opinion ID: 595991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Criminal Offense Level Computation

Text: A second argument raised by Chavez is that the district court erred in adopting the Guidelines range as calculated by the Presentence Report. See Appellant's Brief, at 6, 9. According to the Presentence Report and Addendum adopted by the district court, Chavez's total offense level was 16 and his criminal history category III. 1 Based on this calculation, the district court sentenced Chavez within the applicable Guideline range to 33 months in prison. Chavez does not dispute the fact that his base offense level was 12 or that his criminal history score was III. See E.R. 70-71. In addition, as conceded by Chavez himself at the sentencing hearing and confirmed by the jury verdict on count four, no real dispute can be said to exist with regard to the fact that a two point upward adjustment for possession of a stolen weapon was correct. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2); E.R. 19, 25-26, 31-32. The only objections raised by Chavez regarding the determination of his offense level are whether the district court properly added two points for obstruction of justice and whether the district court erred in denying Chavez a two point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 1 Under the Guidelines, if a defendant willfully obstucted or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of his or her offense, the defendant's base offense level should be enhanced by two points. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Although mere flight in the immediate aftermath of a crime does not normally constitute obstruction of justice, where there are other facts which suggest that the defendant willfully attempted to escape justice and not just the scene of a crime, a two point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is appropriate. United States v. Mondello, 927 F.2d 1463, 1466-1467 (9th Cir.1991); see also, United States v. Garcia, 909 F.2d 389, 391-392 (9th Cir.1990). A district court's finding that a defendant obstructed justice is a factual conclusion which we review for clear error. Mondello, 927 F.2d at 1465. 2 The district court found that although Chavez's flight from the scene of his traffic stop on December 10, 1989, may have been caused by the excitement of the moment, the circumstances surrounding Chavez's second escape on December 17, 1989, were entirely different. As to the second flight from the police, the district court found that Chavez knew he was a convicted felon; that he was not supposed to be in the possession of the guns found by the police in his vehicle on December 10; that he had escaped from the police just one week prior to December 17; and that Chavez knew that the police were still trying to locate him. Such findings are consistent with both the evidence adduced at trial and the findings of the Presentence Report and are not clearly erroneous. See E.R. 34-35, 52-53, 175-187. Accordingly, the district court did not err in awarding a two point upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. 3 The Guidelines also provide that if a defendant clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct, the sentencing court may reduce the offense level by two points. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. A defendant has the burden of demonstrating acceptance of responsibility. Rosales, 917 F.2d at 1222. The district court, having found that Chavez had obstructed justice, must also find that extraordinary circumstances exist in order to justify a downward adjustment for personal responsibility. United States v. Fine, 946 F.2d 650, 652 (9th Cir.1991), abrogated on other grounds, No. 90-50280, Slip Op. at 11070, n. 1, (9th Cir.1992). Further, a district court's finding that a defendant failed to demonstrate personal responsibility is a factual finding subject to review under clear error, and will not be disturbed unless it is without foundation. Rosales, 917 F.2d at 1222. 4 The only argument advanced by Chavez in support of the two point reduction for acceptance of personal responsibility is that he reasonably believed that he needed the weapons to protect himself. See Appellant's Brief at 9; E.R. p. 28-32, 70-71. Such an assertion, though it might explain Chavez's actions, does not show that he had affirmatively accepted personal responsibility for his crimes. Likewise, Chavez offered no facts which would support a finding that extraordinary circumstances existed so as to mitigate the effect of his obstruction of justice. Accordingly, this Court finds the district court's denial of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous. 5