Court Opinion

ID: 9941191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 01:01:25.869205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:19.836637
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50100     Document: 00517065718         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                ____________                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                 No. 23-50100                       February 15, 2024
                                ____________
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                            Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                      versus

   Miguel Angel Ortega,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CR-44-1
                  ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Edith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge:
          Miguel Angel Ortega pled guilty to possession of child pornography.
   The district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement for
   obstruction of justice based on a conversation that Ortega had with his wife
   about a letter of support that she was writing for his sentencing proceeding.
   Ortega appeals, arguing that the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was
   applied in error. We agree and therefore VACATE Ortega’s sentence and
   REMAND for resentencing.
Case: 23-50100        Document: 00517065718                  Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                          No. 23-50100

                                                I.
            On January 3, 2022, Ortega’s wife, Jazmine Rubio, reported her
   husband to the Pecos, Texas Police Department after she discovered child
   pornography on Ortega’s phone. The police executed a search warrant on the
   phone the next day, which revealed photos and videos of children engaged in
   sex acts in Ortega’s Google Pictures account. Ortega told officers that he
   purchased links for hundreds of pornographic videos from a stranger on the
   online       chatroom     app    Discord          while    under    the   influence      of
   methamphetamine. Ortega ultimately admitted to viewing approximately
   fifty pornographic videos or images involving children ranging from age six
   to sixteen. He was indicted shortly thereafter.
            Although she had initially reported him to the police, Rubio later
   decided to support Ortega. 1 Rubio told Ortega’s attorney that she believed
   that Ortega received the child pornography by mistake and that the police
   officers deleted one of Ortega’s accounts that contained “messages to prove
   his innocence.”
            Ortega pled guilty on July 27, 2022. In advance of Ortega’s October
   24 sentencing hearing, Rubio collected “character letters” in support of
   Ortega and was preparing a statement that she planned to read in court. 2

            _____________________
            1
             Rubio and Ortega have a child together, and Rubio has two children from a
   previous relationship to whom Ortega is a “father figure.”
            2
             In April 2022, before Ortega pled guilty, Rubio drafted a character letter in
   support of Ortega. Ortega’s attorney did not submit it at the time, but later attached it as
   an exhibit during Ortega’s sentencing proceeding.

                                                2
Case: 23-50100        Document: 00517065718              Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                         No. 23-50100

           On October 8, 2022, Rubio visited Ortega in jail and the two discussed
   what Rubio would say in support of Ortega at the sentencing hearing. 3 Their
   conversation, which was recorded, proceeded, in relevant part, as follows:
           Ortega:         Have you started working on that letter yet?
           Rubio:          Yeah, it’s just that I don’t know how to start it
                           off . . .
           Ortega:         What do you mean?
           Rubio:          Like, I don’t know how to start it off. I just put
                           that I wanted to speak today. What do I say after
                           that? Or?
           Ortega:         Say you wanted to speak today because . . . you
                           wanted to make sure the judge knows that this is
                           out of character. This is not something that I do.
                           It’s just the drugs had a very . . . bad influence on
                           my life and I just made the wrong decision. I
                           don’t know, something like that, that you think
                           that I need, like, treatment and that . . . if he could
                           show me some type of leniency, so that I could
                           come home with my kids . . . say, like you
                           understand the sever[ity] of the charge, but my
                           issue is not what I am being charged with. My
                           issue is the drugs. Like, that I don’t remember,
                           like, that it is just not something that I was doing.
                           I don’t know, just something like that, but like, in
                           your own words, I guess. Like, and I want you to,
                           like, make sure, like you put in there that I did tell
                           somebody about it, like, when my mind was clear
                           headed. Like, I told somebody, that, you know,

           _____________________
           3
             Although Ortega referred to Rubio’s “letter” in their conversation, Rubio wrote
   her letter of support that was submitted to the court during sentencing months earlier. So,
   given the context, their conversation is better understood as discussing the statement of
   support that Rubio was planning on delivering in court.

                                               3
Case: 23-50100      Document: 00517065718          Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                    No. 23-50100

                        that I erased it. That I didn’t know it was still on
                        my phone . . .
          On October 14, 2022, the probation officer submitted a presentencing
   report that calculated Ortega’s total offense level as 28, including a three-
   level decrease for acceptance of responsibility, and his criminal history
   category as III, resulting in an advisory guidelines range of 97 to 121 months’
   imprisonment. The probation officer determined that there was no indication
   that Ortega had obstructed justice. But when the parties convened for
   sentencing on October 24, 2022, the government told the district court that
   Ortega had “been trying to coerce his family members to make statements
   for him to get a lesser sentence.” The court therefore postponed the
   sentencing.
          After reviewing the recordings of Ortega’s jailhouse conversations,
   the probation officer submitted a revised presentencing report that
   recommended a total offense level of 33 and criminal history category of IV,
   resulting in an advisory guideline sentencing range of 188 to 235 months’
   imprisonment. The five-level increase in total offense level was a result of a
   two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the recorded
   conversation between Ortega and his wife and the retraction of the three-
   level decrease for acceptance of responsibility based, in part, on an unrelated
   recorded phone conversation between Ortega and an unknown man. The
   probation officer stated that the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was
   warranted under Section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines because Ortega
   “instruct[ed] his wife . . . what to write in her letter to the Court.” The
   probation officer specifically cited to the point in the conversation at which
   Ortega “[told] Rubio to include his actions were out of character, and also
   instruct[ed] her to write his problem [was] not the instant offense, but his
   problem [was] with drug use.”

                                          4
Case: 23-50100      Document: 00517065718          Page: 5   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                    No. 23-50100

          Ortega objected to the obstruction enhancement, lack of adjustment
   for acceptance of responsibility, and increased criminal history category in
   the revised presentencing report. With respect to the obstruction-of-justice
   enhancement, Ortega argued that it was not warranted because he had not
   urged his wife to provide false or misleading information, but instead made
   “suggestions” and told Rubio to use “her own words.” The probation officer
   countered that Ortega “[told] his wife what to specifically include in her
   letter.”
          At the sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Ortega’s
   objections    concerning   the   obstruction-of-justice   enhancement     and
   acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment but sustained Ortega’s objection to
   the calculation of his criminal history category, resulting in a revised
   guidelines range of 168 to 210 months of imprisonment. The district court
   adopted the presentencing report, as amended.
          Both Ortega and Rubio then had the opportunity to speak. Ortega
   admitted that he “messed up” and acknowledged he had a problem with
   drugs. Rubio, for her part, stated that she did not believe that Ortega was a
   danger to her children and asked for leniency so that he would not miss his
   kids’ childhood. She also stated that Ortega’s drug use “impair[ed] his
   judgment” and that his “problem really [was] drug use.”
          The district court imposed a top-of-the-guidelines sentence of 210
   months of imprisonment and fifteen years of supervised release. Ortega
   appeals only the application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
                                        II.
          We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing
   Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
   Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 233 (5th Cir. 1998). “A ruling that [factual] findings
   permit an obstruction-of-justice enhancement is a question of law, reviewed

                                         5
Case: 23-50100         Document: 00517065718               Page: 6      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                          No. 23-50100

   de novo.” United States v. Miller, 607 F.3d 144, 148 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation
   and quotation marks omitted). 4 The burden is on the government to show by
   a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support an
   enhancement. United States v. Abrego, 997 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2021).
                                                III.
           An obstruction-of-justice enhancement applies where:
           (1) 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, and (2) the obstructive conduct
           related to (A) the defendant’s offense of conviction and any
           relevant conduct; or (B) a closely related offense.
   U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The Guidelines’ commentary provides non-exhaustive
   lists of examples of the types of conduct to which the obstruction-of-justice
   enhancement does and does not apply. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. nn.4–5; see also
   United States v. Mendoza-Gomez, 69 F.4th 273, 278 (5th Cir. 2023) (noting
   that lists are “non-exhaustive”). The examples of obstructive conduct are all
   “egregiously wrongful behavior whose execution requires a significant
   amount of planning and presents an inherently high risk that justice will in
   fact be obstructed.” Greer, 158 F.3d at 235. Among this list is “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.

           _____________________
           4
              The government claims that Ortega’s asserted error is a factual determination
   reviewed for clear error. But the facts were not disputed before the district court. Indeed,
   the conversation between Ortega and Rubio was recorded. And where, as here, an appellant
   “does not dispute the facts found by the district court, but contends the district court erred
   in its interpretation of the guidelines and its application of factual findings to [an]
   enhancement . . . our review of the application of the guidelines is de novo.” United States
   v. Torres, 601 F.3d 303, 305 (5th Cir. 2010).

                                                 6
Case: 23-50100      Document: 00517065718           Page: 7     Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                     No. 23-50100

   n.4. The Guidelines’ examples of non-obstructive conduct, by contrast,
   “while dishonest, carry little risk of significantly impeding the investigation
   or prosecution of a case and require substantially less planning.” Greer, 158
   F.3d at 235. When determining whether the enhancement applies to conduct
   not expressly listed in the commentary, we compare it to the types of conduct
   listed in the examples provided by the Guidelines. Id. at 234–36.
          The government makes two arguments about why the obstruction-of-
   justice enhancement applies: (1) Ortega directed Rubio to say that Ortega’s
   conduct was a result of drug addiction even though she lacked personal
   knowledge of such drug use; and (2) Ortega tried to influence Rubio’s
   testimony to align with his.
          As to its first argument, the government never alleged that Rubio
   lacked knowledge of Ortega’s drug use before the district court, so the
   argument is likely forfeited. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397
   (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument by failing to raise it in the first
   instance in the district court—thus raising it for the first time on appeal.”).
   But even if the government had raised the issue below, it did not meet its
   burden of proving it was more probable than not that Rubio was unaware of
   her husband’s drug use. See United States v. Wilson, 322 F.3d 353, 361 (5th
   Cir. 2003). The presentencing report outlines Ortega’s extensive drug use
   during his marriage, including abuse of alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine,
   synthetic heroine, and fentanyl. Indeed, several months after Rubio and
   Ortega were married, Ortega overdosed on fentanyl and was hospitalized.
   Thus, the government’s claim that Rubio did not know about her husband’s
   drug use strains believability.
          As to its second argument, the government contends that by
   attempting to have Rubio present testimony consistent with his own, Ortega
   “unlawfully influenc[ed]” a witness’s testimony or otherwise came within

                                           7
Case: 23-50100      Document: 00517065718            Page: 8   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                      No. 23-50100

   the ambit of obstructive conduct. But the government never argued that
   Ortega’s suggestions were false before the district court. See Rollins, 8 F.4th
   at 397. And for good reason: everything Ortega told Rubio to say was
   supported by the factual record: Ortega had a drug problem; he had young
   children; he testified that he made a mistake; and, after he sobered up, he
   reported to his supervisor at work that he had downloaded pornography from
   the dark web onto his personal computer. These facts were all outlined in the
   original presentencing report and there is no indication that the probation
   officer thought they were false.
          And “an endeavor to influence a witness to tell the truth” is not
   obstruction, at least under the witness tampering statute. United States v.
   Partin, 552 F.2d 621, 642 (5th Cir. 1977); see also Harrington v. United States,
   267 F. 97, 101 (8th Cir. 1920) (“It is not an unlawful attempt to influence or
   impede a witness . . . for one to seek to obtain from a witness a statement of
   the facts as he believes them to be, without the exercise of undue
   influence . . .”). Our case law suggests that the same is true with respect to
   the obstruction of justice enhancement. See United States v. Johnson, 352 F.3d
   146, 148 (5th Cir. 2003) (“If a defendant objects to a sentence enhancement
   based on perjured testimony, the district court must review the evidence and
   make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to or
   obstruction of justice, or an attempt to do the same, under the perjury
   definition.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v.
   Kilgarlin, 157 F. App’x 716, 719 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (to support an
   enhancement for suborning perjury of a witness the district court “must
   identify false testimony concerning a material matter, indicate the witness
   testified with willful intent to provide false testimony, and indicate the
   defendant procured the witness’s testimony”). Moreover, there is no
   evidence that Ortega threatened, intimidated, or otherwise exerted unlawful
   influence over Rubio’s testimony beyond mere attempts to persuade. And

                                           8
Case: 23-50100      Document: 00517065718          Page: 9    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                    No. 23-50100

   “persuasion . . . is by itself innocuous.” Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States,
   544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (cleaned up).
          The government nevertheless contends that even if Ortega’s conduct
   “was not unlawful, that is, he did not threaten, intimidate, or otherwise
   unlawfully influence Rubio,” it was still obstructive because “[t]he purpose
   of Ortega’s conversation with Rubio was not to ensure the district court had
   truthful testimony, but that the district court had his version of testimony
   from someone other than him.” We disagree. We do not think that “trying
   to influence” a witness to testify truthfully falls into the ambit of what the
   obstruction of justice enhancement covers. We have repeatedly required
   proof of untruthfulness where the enhancement is applied for encouraging a
   witness to testify dishonestly. These requirements indicate that Ortega telling
   his wife what he wanted her to say at his sentencing in her “own words” is
   not “egregiously wrongful behavior” when everything he said was plausibly
   true. Greer, 158 F.3d at 234–36; cf. Resol. Tr. Corp. v. Bright, 6 F.3d 336, 341
   (5th Cir. 1993) (“Placing statements in a draft affidavit that have not been
   previously discussed with a witness does not automatically constitute bad
   faith conduct.”).
          Indeed, the sole case that the government relies upon in support of
   this proposition—United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546 (5th Cir. 1993)—is
   distinguishable. The defendant in Graves, who had been indicted for
   defrauding the United States, “met with his accountant following [the
   accountant] testifying before the grand jury and debriefed him on all the
   questions he had been asked and answers he had given.” Id. at 1555. The
   defendant then “relay[ed] the testimony of the accountant to [his co-
   conspirator], so that [the co-conspirator]’s testimony would be consistent”
   with the accountant’s. Id. This blatant attempt to corrupt the legal process is
   in stark contrast to the facts here. First, Ortega was coordinating with his
   wife, not his criminal counterpart. Second, his wife asked him what he thought

                                          9
Case: 23-50100     Document: 00517065718            Page: 10    Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                     No. 23-50100

   she should say. And third, in attempting to guide the focus of her statement
   to be more in line with his own, Ortega spoke in broad strokes and told Rubio
   to use her “own words.” We simply see no basis for holding that Ortega
   obstructed justice when, in answering his wife’s question about what she
   should say to the judge, he tried to create a unified, arguably truthful narrative
   between the two of them.
                                          IV.
          Because the district court erred in applying the obstruction-of-justice
   enhancement, we VACATE Ortega’s sentence and REMAND for
   resentencing.

                                          10