Court Opinion

ID: 9839797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 00:00:32.374303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.619861
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51092        Document: 00516894154             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51092
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                             September 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jesus Ivan Martinez-Hernandez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-189-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jesus Ivan Martinez-Hernandez appeals his 41-month sentence for
   transporting undocumented immigrants into the United States in violation of
   8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II) & (B)(ii). Martinez-Hernandez argues that
   the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction
   of justice under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3C1.1 because there

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51092        Document: 00516894154            Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                        No. 22-51092

   was no finding by the court that he willfully engaged in obstructive conduct
   when he failed to appear for his sentencing hearing. In the district court,
   Martinez-Hernandez’s counsel asserted his client had erred as to the hearing
   date and made arrangements to turn himself in to authorities later that same
   day. The Government argues that the district court did not err because it
   adopted the finding of the presentence report (PSR) that Martinez-
   Hernandez willfully failed to appear, that the district court’s comments
   suggested it did not believe Martinez-Hernandez’s explanation for failing to
   appear for sentencing, and that there is no evidence to suggest that Martinez-
   Hernandez was on his way to court until after he learned about an arrest
   warrant for his failure to appear.
          A district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is
   reviewed de novo and its factual findings, such as the obstruction of justice
   finding, are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 233
   (5th Cir. 1998). The proponent of an adjustment must prove its applicability
   by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690
   (5th Cir. 1995).
          In considering the term “willful” in the context of a failure to appear,
   this court has concluded that it requires a conscious and intentional failure.
   United States v. O’Callaghan, 106 F.3d 1221, 1223 (5th Cir. 1997). The
   district court did not make findings that establish willfulness. See United
   States v. Miller, 607 F.3d 144, 152 (5th Cir. 2010). Further, the record before
   this court does not suffice for us to make a determination that Martinez-
   Hernandez “willfully” obstructed justice.             Rather, the district court
   appeared to acknowledge that Martinez-Hernandez made a mistake as to the
   hearing date, the Government did not offer evidence to the contrary, and the
   PSR did not cite anything other than the failure to appear. Thus, a remand
   for findings is warranted. See O’Callaghan, 106 F.3d at 1223; see also Miller,
   607 F.3d at 152.

                                             2
Case: 22-51092     Document: 00516894154          Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                   No. 22-51092

          Martinez-Hernandez also challenges the denial of a reduction for
   acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(a). A denial of a reduction
   under § 3E1.1 will not be reversed unless the decision is “without
   foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir.
   2008). The denial of the adjustment was based on the same grounds as the
   obstruction enhancement. Thus, it should also be addressed anew on
   remand.
          Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND this matter
   for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         3