Court Opinion

ID: 9915298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 01:00:34.176874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:46.718553
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50182        Document: 00517022182             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/04/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50182
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                January 4, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Uriel Ignacio Cabral-Aleman,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-703-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Uriel Ignacio Cabral-Aleman appeals the district court’s imposition of
   a two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to
   United States Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.1. The district court applied the
   enhancement because during his arrest, Cabral-Aleman (1) broke his cell

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50182      Document: 00517022182           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/04/2024

                                     No. 23-50182

   phone in half and then attempted to conceal it in the waistband of his pants,
   and (2) attempted to strike an arresting federal agent.
          On appeal, Cabral-Aleman presents two arguments in support of his
   contention that the district court erred when it applied the § 3C1.1
   enhancement. First, he did not have the required intent to obstruct justice
   when he attempted to strike the federal agent. Second, the destruction of his
   cell phone contemporaneously with his arrest did not result in a material
   hinderance to the investigation. He concedes that review is limited to plain
   error because he did not object to the enhancement.
          To demonstrate plain error, Cabral-Aleman must show that (1) there
   is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable
   dispute; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, this court will
   exercise its discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the
   fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
          Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant’s offense level is
   increased by two levels if he (1) “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.”    § 3C1.1.   Because Cabral-Aleman destroyed his cell phone
   contemporaneously with his arrest, its destruction alone is insufficient “to
   warrant an adjustment for obstruction unless it resulted in a material
   hindrance to the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense or
   the sentencing of the offender.” § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(D)). A material
   hindrance “requires, at the least, an actual, negative effect on either the

                                          2
Case: 23-50182      Document: 00517022182          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/04/2024

                                    No. 23-50182

   course or result of the investigation.” United States v. Morales-Sanchez, 609
   F.3d 637, 641 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Cabral-Aleman’s challenge to the imposition of the enhancement
   based on his destruction of his cell phone is unavailing. The record reflects
   that (1) federal agents continued their investigation after arresting Cabral-
   Aleman, and (2) by breaking his cell phone in half, Cabral-Aleman destroyed
   any evidence contained within it that could have been used in the
   investigation of the offense. In light of the facts set forth in the presentence
   report and reasonable inferences from those facts, see United States v.
   Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006), he fails to demonstrate that any
   error was clear or obvious, see Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. While Cabral-Aleman
   need not show that his specific challenge has been addressed in a prior
   decision, he “must at least show error in the straightforward applications of
   existing cases.” United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 291 (5th Cir. 2022)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s imposition of a two-
   level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to § 3C1.1
   based on Cabral-Aleman’s intentional destruction of his cell phone. As such,
   we need not address Cabral-Aleman’s argument that he did not have the
   required intent to obstruct justice when he attempted to strike a federal agent.

                                          3