Court Opinion

ID: 9399912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 18:00:48.763341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.867126
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40167         Document: 00516776003             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/06/2023

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

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      June 6, 2023
                                        No. 22-40167                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Carlos Daniel Uribe-Garza,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:21-CR-601-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Carlos Daniel Uribe-Garza pleaded guilty to engaging in illicit sexual
   conduct in foreign places and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines
   range to 121 months of imprisonment. He now challenges the district court’s
   imposition of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to
   U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based, in relevant part, on jail calls that Uribe-Garza made
   to the minor victim, M.I.R.G., before he was indicted for the instant offense.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40167     Document: 00516776003          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                   No. 22-40167

                                        I.
         Uribe-Garza was indicted on March 23, 2021, for transportation of an
   illegal alien (Count One). On April 20, 2021, he was charged in a superseding
   indictment with engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places (Count
   Two). He pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written agreement, to Count Two,
   and the Government dismissed Count One.
          According to the presentence report (PSR), Uribe-Garza and his 15-
   year-old passenger were detained when attempting to enter the United States
   on February 24, 2021. Uribe-Garza was 22 years old at the time. The
   passenger, a Mexican citizen and resident referred to as M.I.R.G., told
   investigators that she had entered a relationship with Uribe-Garza less than
   a year prior with her mother’s consent. She said that she became pregnant
   with Uribe-Garza’s child and had planned to marry him, but their marriage
   was postponed after she suffered a miscarriage. The night before they were
   detained at the border, Uribe-Garza got into an argument with M.I.R.G.’s
   mother and asked M.I.R.G. to come to the United States with him. Without
   her mother’s knowledge or consent, M.I.R.G. agreed. When M.I.R.G.’s
   mother picked her up from the port of entry, she confirmed to investigators
   that she had initially consented to M.I.R.G.’s relationship and marriage to
   Uribe-Garza, but after the miscarriage, she decided there was no longer any
   need for M.I.R.G. to marry and refused to sign a marriage consent form.
          In response to an objection from the Government, the PSR applied a
   two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G.
   § 3C1.1 based on phone calls that Uribe-Garza made while detained,
   including calls to M.I.R.G. and a person referred to as Z.G., who had a prior
   sexual relationship with Uribe-Garza when she was 16 years old. According
   to a summary of calls made in March 2021, Uribe-Garza told a friend that he
   did not understand why M.I.R.G. and her mother were cooperating with

                                        2
Case: 22-40167      Document: 00516776003           Page: 3      Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                     No. 22-40167

   investigators. He also told M.I.R.G. that he loved her and that he wanted to
   be together again after his incarceration. After M.I.R.G. told Uribe-Garza
   about her interview with investigators, Uribe-Garza told her that she did not
   have to give a statement and that he had decided to admit what he had done
   so she did not have to cooperate. He then got angry and yelled at M.I.R.G.
   because he was upset that he was incarcerated, but he quickly apologized and
   told her that everything she said could be used against him, that it would be
   better for her to not say anything, that he blamed her for his situation, and
   that he could get raped or killed in prison because of her.
          Uribe-Garza objected in writing to the application of the § 3C1.1
   enhancement, arguing that he did not discourage M.I.R.G. from cooperating
   and that the jail calls reflect that he intended to accept responsibility for his
   offense, which he believed would save M.I.R.G. from having to testify. He
   also asserted that most of his comments on the jail calls were unrelated to the
   underlying criminal investigation.
          At sentencing, the district court overruled Uribe-Garza’s objection,
   adopted the PSR’s findings, and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 121
   months of imprisonment. Uribe-Garza timely filed a notice of appeal. Fed.
   R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).
                                          II.
          Section 3C1.1 provides for a two-level enhancement if “(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” the “offense of conviction and any relevant
   conduct” or “a closely related offense.”            § 3C1.1.      The guideline
   commentary states that the enhancement applies to various types of
   obstructive conduct, including “threatening, intimidating, or otherwise

                                          3
Case: 22-40167      Document: 00516776003           Page: 4    Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                     No. 22-40167

   unlawfully influencing” a witness, “directly or indirectly, or attempting to
   do so.” § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(A).
          The decision to assess a § 3C1.1 enhancement is a factual finding that
   we review for clear error. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208
   (5th Cir. 2008). Under this standard, “we will uphold a finding so long as it
   is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Ekanem, 555
   F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
                                         III.
          Given that the record reflects that Uribe-Garza told M.I.R.G. that she
   did not have to give a statement to investigators, everything she said could be
   used against him, and it would be better for her not to say anything, the
   district court’s finding that Uribe-Garza willfully attempted to obstruct or
   impede the underlying investigation was plausible in light of the record as a
   whole. See Ekanem, 555 F.3d at 175. Although Uribe-Garza asserts that he
   made those statements to M.I.R.G. because he had decided to admit to his
   offense conduct so she did not have to testify, this is, at best, one permissible
   view of the evidence. However, “the choice by a trier of fact between two
   permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous.” Brumfield v.
   Cain, 808 F.3d 1041, 1066 (5th Cir. 2015). Here, the district court was
   entitled to infer from the evidence that Uribe-Garza’s actions “were a
   conscious and deliberate attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to impede
   the Government’s investigation.” United States v. Price, No. 21-20629, 2023
   WL 2447446, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023) (citing United States v. Upton, 91
   F.3d 677, 688 (5th Cir. 1996)); see also United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228,
   241 (5th Cir. 1998).
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          4