Court Opinion

ID: 9896906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:00:39.657598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.652911
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50798   Document: 00516966838   Page: 1   Date Filed: 11/14/2023

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

                                                                  FILED
                            No. 22-50798                  November 14, 2023
                          Summary Calendar
                          ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                  Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Ramon Umberto Cortez-Rodriguez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-50801
                          _____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Ramon Humberto Cortez-Rodriguez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-50798         Document: 00516966838             Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/14/2023

                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                       USDC Nos. 4:18-CR-910-1, 4:22-CR-90-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ramon Humberto Cortez-Rodriguez appeals the 96-month sentence
   he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. Although
   he also appealed the revocation of his supervised release and the consecutive
   14-month sentence imposed following revocation, he has abandoned any
   challenge to his revocation or revocation sentence by failing to brief it. See
   United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 122 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996); Beasley
   v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986).
          Cortez-Rodriguez argues that the district court’s application of a two-
   level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G.
   § 3C1.1 was error because the district court failed to make the requisite
   findings to support its application. He asserts that the Presentence Report’s
   (PSR) finding that his testimony was untruthful and intended to mislead the
   jury was conclusional, that it did not identify any specific perjured testimony,
   and that the jury’s guilty verdict does not automatically equate to a finding of
   perjury. Cortez further complains that the district court’s general finding
   that he testified untruthfully was insufficient to encompass the necessary
   findings underlying a perjury determination as the court never specifically
   found that he willfully lied about a material matter, and he urges that it is not
   obvious from the record what the court believed he had lied about.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 22-50798      Document: 00516966838           Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/14/2023

                                       22-50798
                                   c/w No. 22-50801

          We assume without deciding that Cortez-Rodriguez’s objection to the
   obstruction enhancement was sufficient to preserve his appellate arguments
   and thus that the district court’s finding of obstruction is reviewed for clear
   error. United States v. Mora-Carrillo, 80 F.4th 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2023);
   United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). “Where, as
   here, the finding hinges on the credibility of a witness, the district court’s
   determination is given particular deference.” Mora-Carrillo, 80 F.4th at 716
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Although the district court did not make a specific finding of
   willfulness, it adopted the PSR, which made such a finding. See Mora-
   Carrillo, 80 F.4th at 717; see also United States v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453,
   470 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Miller, 607 F.3d 144, 152 (5th Cir. 2010).
   Additionally, the materiality of Cortez-Rodriguez’s untruthful testimony is
   obvious from the record. See Mora-Carrillo, 80 F.4th at 717. The district
   court disbelieved his testimony that he returned to the United States because
   he feared for his life in Mexico after his brother had been killed in 2008 and
   he had been stabbed in 2016 and that he did not tell arresting officers about
   his fear at the time of his arrest because he had told immigration officials
   about his fear at the time of his 2018 apprehension and those officials did
   nothing. His testimony that he previously told immigration officials about
   his fear and that the officials failed to act was refuted by the records and
   testimony the Government provided in rebuttal, which showed that he told
   immigration officials in 2018 that he had no fear of returning to Mexico and
   that he entered the United States to find work.             Cortez-Rodriguez’s
   untruthful testimony was material, as it was designed to establish or bolster
   a duress defense and to show his lack of intent to enter the United States
   illegally. See United States v. Cabral-Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 1994);
   see also Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d at 470.      Accordingly, the district court’s
   obstruction finding encompassed the requisite factual predicates for a finding

                                           3
Case: 22-50798     Document: 00516966838         Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/14/2023

                                     22-50798
                                 c/w No. 22-50801

   of perjury, and the enhancement will be upheld.           See United States
   v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95 (1993); Mora-Carrillo, 80 F.4th at 717.
          Cortez-Rodriguez also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C.
   § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As he
   concedes, that argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
   523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th
   Cir. 2019).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4