Court Opinion

ID: 9398364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 00:00:36.750749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:32.988063
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50777         Document: 00516768404             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-50777
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     May 30, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Hector Ivan Olivo,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:20-CR-1327-8
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Hector Ivan Olivo pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to
   transport illegal aliens resulting in serious bodily injury or placing lives in
   jeopardy, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (B)(iii). He was
   sentenced to 37 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Olivo
   challenges his sentence on appeal.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-50777      Document: 00516768404           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                     No. 21-50777

          Olivo contends that the district court erroneously applied a two-level
   enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. He asserts that the offense conduct
   did not recklessly create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to
   another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. Also,
   he maintains that any conduct that could warrant the enhancement was not
   committed or caused by him. Because Olivo did not assert the instant claims
   in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Melendez,
   57 F.4th 505, 507 (5th Cir. 2023).
          The record reflects that the truck in which Olivo was a passenger did
   not fully stop for inspection at an immigration checkpoint; ignored the orders
   of border patrol agents and accelerated through the checkpoint; led agents on
   a high-speed chase during which the car swerved into oncoming traffic while
   traveling at speeds exceeding 90 miles per hour; continued to move after tire-
   deflation devices had punctured its tires; and stopped after crashing through
   a fence on private property. This conduct provides a basis for the adjustment.
   See United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
   Jimenez, 323 F.3d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 2003). While Olivo alleges that he only
   was a passenger in the truck, the record supports that he was involved in the
   alien-smuggling enterprise and that, after the crash, he not only directed the
   illegal aliens to run into the nearby brush but also fled on foot along with the
   driver of the car in an effort to hide from the pursuing agents. These facts
   suggest that Olivo participated in the chase and at least aided and abetted the
   conduct of the driver. See United States v. Lima-Rivero, 971 F.3d 518, 520-21
   & n.1 (5th Cir. 2020); see also § 3C1.2, comment. (n.5).
          Additionally, Olivo argues that the district court erroneously denied a
   reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We
   review a district court’s determination of acceptance of responsibility with
   more deference than ordinary factual determinations considered under the
   clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Brigman, 953 F.2d 906, 909 (5th

                                              2
Case: 21-50777        Document: 00516768404          Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                      No. 21-50777

   Cir. 1992). We will affirm the decision to deny a reduction under § 3E1.1
   unless it is without foundation. United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525
   (5th Cir. 1999).
          Olivo asserts that he timely pleaded guilty to the charged offense and
   admitted to a factual basis that set forth each element of the crime. Further,
   he notes that he was cooperative and forthcoming after his arrest and gave a
   statement to agents in which he admitted his guilt and offered details about
   the smuggling organization. The record also reflects that he gave a statement
   for purposes of the presentence report in which he admitted his involvement
   in the offense and apologized for his conduct.
          However, Olivo is not entitled to the enhancement solely because of
   his guilty plea or admissions. See United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d
   407, 410 (5th Cir. 2020); § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). The record supports that
   the district court construed Olivo’s conduct and admissions as suggesting a
   lack of candor and not showing sincere contrition. The district court found,
   inter alia, that he did not accept responsibility for the acts resulting in serious
   bodily injury or placing lives in jeopardy for purposes of § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iii).
   We owe great deference to the district court’s determination as to whether
   Olivo honestly and sincerely admitted to having committed the conduct that
   comprised the offense. See Brigman, 953 F.2d at 909; United States v. Alfaro,
   919 F.2d 962, 968 (5th Cir. 1990). While Olivo suggests that his failure to
   give factual details is due to his background and personal characteristics, he
   has not shown that his failure to accept responsibility was due to those factors
   or that the district court did not consider those factors in determining that no
   reduction was warranted. See United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 551 (5th
   Cir. 1993). The determination that Olivo failed to accept responsibility was
   not entirely without foundation. See Anderson, 174 F.3d at 525.
          AFFIRMED.

                                               3