Court Opinion

ID: 9895714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:24.737444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:23.822625
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51060         Document: 00516960126             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                 FILED
                                                                            November 7, 2023
                                       No. 22-51060
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                 Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jeronimo Alas-Ayala,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-533-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Southwick, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Appellant Jeronimo Alas-Ayala (“Alas-Ayala”) appeals the district
   court’s sentence. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM.
                                        I. Background
          On June 22, 2022, the United States Border Patrol (“USBP”) en-
   countered nine individuals, including Alas-Ayala, in the area known to agents
   as High Lonesome Mountain in Culberson County, Texas, near the United
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51060      Document: 00516960126          Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 22-51060

   States border with Mexico. All nine individuals were citizens of Mexico and
   admitted they were in the United States illegally.
          During the immigration inspection, agents noticed strap marks on
   their shoulders, indicating they may have been carrying heavy backpacks.
   Approximately 250 feet away from where the group was detained, the USBP
   agents found ten burlap backpacks hidden in the brush. The backpacks
   contained bundles of marijuana, weighing a total of 273.82 kilograms. Agents
   transported the group back to the station for processing.
          Two members of the group—including a boy named “Luis”—were
   minors and released back to Mexico. The Drug Enforcement Administration
   (“DEA”) agents interviewed the seven remaining men, four of whom
   (including Alas-Ayala) were related to each other. The interviews of Alas-
   Ayala and another member of the group, Arturo Gonzalez-Terrazas
   (“Gonzalez-Terrazas”), are the most relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
          Alas-Ayala admitted to having carried between 20 to 25 kilograms of
   marijuana, for which he would be paid 40,000 pesos (approximately $2,000)
   to bring from Mexico to Odessa, Texas. He claimed that he understood he
   would be smuggling the marijuana into the United States when he accepted
   the job, with the plan to return back to Mexico afterwards. Alas-Ayala
   explained that the group was supposed to walk to I-10, where they would be
   picked up. He also claims that the tenth member of the group, who was never
   apprehended, may have been the guide. The group crossed into the United
   States at Lomas De Arena, on the Mexico side. According to Alas-Ayala, this
   was his first time crossing into the United States.
          Gonzalez-Terrazas also spoke to DEA agents. He reported that he
   first met Alas-Ayala three days before the trip. He said that Alas-Ayala told
   him about the “trips” into the United States carrying backpacks filled with
   marijuana. He said that Alas-Ayala gave him the impression that the trip was

                                          2
Case: 22-51060      Document: 00516960126           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 22-51060

   easy to do and said that it paid well. Gonzalez-Terrazas advised DEA agents
   that Alas-Ayala told him they always take bundles into the United States as a
   job. He asked Alas-Ayala if he could be invited on one of those trips. Three
   days after meeting Alas-Ayala, Gonzalez-Terrazas crossed into the United
   States with the group. He stated that the marijuana bundle he carried
   weighed approximately 25 kilograms and that he was going to be paid 20,000
   pesos (approximately $1,000) for carrying the bundle into the United States.
          All seven men, including Alas-Ayala and his three family members,
   were charged in the Western District of Texas with importing marijuana
   (Count 1) and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute
   marijuana (Count 2). Alas-Ayala pleaded guilty to Count 2 without a written
   plea agreement, with the understanding that the government would later
   dismiss Count 1.
          Alas-Ayala’s cousin and co-defendant, Jose Manuel Ayala-Alas,
   pleaded not guilty and went to trial. Gonzalez-Terrazas testified at Jose’s trial
   that defendant Alas-Ayala sent “Luis,” a juvenile, to recruit him to
   participate in the marijuana smuggling venture. He testified that he would be
   paid 20,000 pesos. He further testified that Alas-Ayala had instructed him
   not to testify at the trial and to falsely say that “Luis” was the one who had
   recruited him. There is no evidence to suggest that Gonzalez-Terrazas lied
   or perjured himself during his testimony.
          On November 28, 2022, the district court held Alas-Ayala’s
   sentencing hearing. Alas-Ayala objected to the following calculations: (1) the
   four-level leadership role adjustment; (2) the two-level enhancement for his
   aggravated role in a drug case; (3) the two-level obstruction of justice
   enhancement; and (4) the failure to award him an acceptance of
   responsibility reduction. Alas-Ayala based a large part of his objections on the
   inaccuracy of the testimony of Gonzalez-Terrazas made during the

                                          3
Case: 22-51060      Document: 00516960126           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 22-51060

   investigation and jury trial of Jose. The district court explained that it
   presided over Jose’s trial a month earlier and that, in addition to
   remembering Gonzalez-Terrazas’s testimony that Alas-Ayala recruited him,
   recalled that the probation officer attended the trial and took notes
   throughout the trial. The district court determined that the Presentence
   Investigation Report’s (“PSR”) summary of the testimony and facts were
   consistent with the court’s recollection of the testimony. The district court
   thus overruled Alas-Ayala’s objections. Adopting the guideline calculations
   in the PSR, Alas-Ayala was sentenced within the guideline range to 151
   months imprisonment. This appeal followed.
                              II. Standard of Review
          Where a defendant preserves a procedural sentencing error by
   objecting before the district court, we review the district court’s application
   of the guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States
   v. Randall, 924 F.3d 790, 795 (5th Cir. 2019). A factual finding that is
   plausible based on the record as a whole is not clearly erroneous. United States
   v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). This is
   especially true when the sentence enhancement is based, at least in part, upon
   the court’s evaluation of witness credibility. See United States v. Nixon, 881
   F.2d 1305, 1310 (5th Cir. 1989). This court defers “to the credibility
   determinations of the district court.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513
   F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
                                   III. Discussion
                         A. Aggravating Role Adjustment
          Section 3B1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides
   for a four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader
   of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.” To qualify for
   an aggravating role adjustment, “the defendant must have been the

                                          4
Case: 22-51060         Document: 00516960126                Page: 5       Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                           No. 22-51060

   organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.”
   U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2.
           Alas-Ayala argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that
   he recruited Gonzalez-Terrazas. He claims that there are not enough facts to
   support a finding that Alas-Ayala was a “leader” or “organizer” under §
   3B1.1. He argues that the court should not consider other facts supporting
   the aggravating role adjustment since the only ground stated in the PSR was
   the recruitment of Gonzalez-Terrazas.
           The district court had presided over the trial of co-defendant Jose
   Manuel Ayala-Alas and recalled Gonzalez-Terrazas’s statement that Alas-
   Ayala recruited him.1 The district court recalled that the probation officer sat
   through the co-defendant’s trial, took notes, and reviewed the discovery. In

           _____________________
           1
              The district court may consider any information which bears “sufficient indicia
   of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 455 (5th
   Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted). “The district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous if
   they are plausible in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” Id. (footnote omitted).
   The district court judge has wide discretion in the kind of information and source of
   information he considers in determining a sentence. United States v. Ochoa, 659 F.2d 547,
   549 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949)). District courts
   often go outside the record and consider a defendant’s past conduct and activities when
   fashioning a sentencing, see Ochoa, 559 F.2d at 549 (citation omitted), as well as rely on
   evidence, including hearsay evidence, without regard to admissibility under the Federal
   Rules of Evidence which govern a trial. Solis, 299 F.3d at 455 (citing United States v. Huskey,
   137 F.3d 238, 291 (5th Cir. 1998)). And this court has held that district courts may rely on
   testimony given at a co-defendant’s trial when considering a defendant’s sentence. See
   United States v. Hernandez-Ybarra, 654 F. App’x 662, 663 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court
   did not err at sentencing in relying on testimony from a co-defendant’s trial because such
   information was also detailed in the factual basis of the underlying case and the PSR); cf.
   United States v. Garcia, 797 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that a district court must
   provide fair notice before relying on testimony from a separate criminal trial that was not
   contained in the PSR).

                                                  5
Case: 22-51060      Document: 00516960126          Page: 6    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 22-51060

   the PSR, the probation officer subsequently prepared a summary of the
   information gathered at trial. According to the PSR, Gonzalez-Terrazas
   testified that Alas-Ayala sent Luis to recruit him, Alas-Ayala instructed him
   not to testify, and Alas-Ayala told him to testify that Luis recruited him. The
   probation officer found this testimony compelling because it was under oath
   and there was nothing to suggest that Gonzalez-Terrazas committed perjury.
   The district court, having observed Gonzalez-Terrazas’s testimony at trial,
   adopted the probation officer’s response to the PSR objections.
          Most notably, Alas-Ayala did not offer evidence to rebut Gonzalez-
   Terrazas’s testimony and does not direct this court to evidence
   demonstrating that it was “materially untrue.” United States v. Solis, 299
   F.3d 420, 455 (5th Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the PSR
   provides a “sufficient indicia of reliability” to support the district court’s
   factual finding that Alas-Ayala recruited Gonzalez-Terrazas, especially since
   Alas-Ayala failed to offer rebuttal evidence. United States v. Nava, 624 F.3d
   226, 231 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).
   The district court’s finding that Alas-Ayala recruited Gonzalez-Terrazas is
   plausible in light of the record as a whole and is not clearly erroneous. See
   Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590; Nixon, 881 F.2d at 1310.
          Alas-Ayala’s argument that the court should not consider the other
   facts supporting the aggravating role adjustment because the only ground
   reflected in the PSR was the recruitment of Gonzalez-Terrazas is misplaced.
   This court “may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported
   by the record.” United States v. Le, 512 F.3d 128, 134 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). The unrebutted facts in the PSR
   describing the offense conduct were ascertained through the investigation by
   law enforcement and immigration agents, which is generally considered
   reliable. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213, 220 (5th Cir. 2014)
   (citations omitted). Because the PSR establishes that Alas-Ayala previously

                                          6
Case: 22-51060      Document: 00516960126           Page: 7     Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 22-51060

   smuggled marijuana across the border, smuggled marijuana as a job, recruited
   Gonzalez-Terrazas to join the venture, instructed Gonzalez-Terrazas not to
   testify, instructed Gonzalez-Terrazas how to testify, and stood to receive a
   larger share of the fruits of the crime than his recruit, the district court’s
   finding that Alas-Ayala was an organizer or leader of one or more participants
   is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Caldwell, 448
   F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); United States v. Cooper, 274
   F.3d 230, 247 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. Alas-Ayala has not
   shown that the district court clearly erred by applying the aggravating role
   adjustment. See Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590.
                     B. Enhancement Under § 2D1.1(b)(16)
          The guideline for drug trafficking offenses provides for a two-level
   increase to the base offense level if the defendant received an aggravating role
   under § 3B1.1 and the offense involved one or more of a list of factors.
   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16)(A)-(E). In appealing the two-level adjustment under
   § 2D1.1(b)(16), Alas-Ayala challenges only the element requiring an
   aggravating role adjustment. For the reasons previously discussed, the
   finding that he was an organizer or leader is plausible in light of the record as
   a whole and is not clearly erroneous. Alas-Ayala has not shown clear error in
   the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(16) enhancement. See Randall, 924 F.3d at
   795.
                     C. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement
          Alas-Ayala next challenges the sentence enhancement for obstruction
   of justice. In the district court, he argued that Gonzalez-Terrazas’s testimony
   was incorrect. On appeal, Alas-Ayala contends that Gonzalez-Terrazas’s
   testimony is internally inconsistent and that encouraging someone not to
   testify does not rise to the level of obstruction of justice. Because he
   challenges the enhancements on grounds different than he asserted in the

                                           7
Case: 22-51060      Document: 00516960126          Page: 8    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 22-51060

   district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Medina-
   Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). To show plain
   error, Alas-Ayala must establish a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and
   that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009) (citations omitted). If he makes this showing, we should exercise our
   discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
   integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted).
          Section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines provides for a two-level enhancement
   if, among other things, “the defendant 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.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Examples of covered conduct include
   “threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing a co-
   defendant, witness, or juror, directly or indirectly, or attempting to do so.”
   U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(A).
          Alas-Ayala has abandoned the argument that encouraging his co-
   defendant not to testify is constitutionally protected speech by failing to
   provide any analysis or cite any precedent to support his position. See Yohey
   v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); Beasley v.
   McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Additionally, his argument that
   there was no evidence of intent to obstruct justice apart from encouraging his
   co-defendant not to testify is misplaced. It is reasonable to infer that Alas-
   Ayala was trying to minimize his own role in the offense by asking Gonzalez-
   Terrazas not to implicate him as the recruiter. See United States v. Zamora-
   Salazar, 860 F.3d 826, 836 (5th Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Guidry,
   960 F.3d 676, 680, 682 (5th Cir. 2020). Alas-Ayala has not shown plain error.
   See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

                                          8
Case: 22-51060      Document: 00516960126         Page: 9   Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                   No. 22-51060

                  D. Acceptance of Responsibility Reduction
          The defendant’s offense level is reduced by two levels if he clearly
   demonstrates acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). But
   “[c]onduct resulting in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 (Obstructing or
   Impeding the Administration of Justice) ordinarily indicates that the
   defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” Id.
   § 3E1.1, cmt. n.4.
          Alas-Ayala argues that the district court erroneously denied him a
   reduction for his acceptance of responsibility because the court erroneously
   determined that he obstructed justice. For the reasons previously discussed,
   the district court did not plainly err by adjusting the offense level for
   obstruction of justice. Alas-Ayala has not shown that the district court’s
   denial of a reduction for the acceptance of responsibility was “without
   foundation.” United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir.
   2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
                              IV. CONCLUSION
          For the aforementioned reasons, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                        9