United States v. Synaca Thomas , 547 F. App'x 612 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-20594       Document: 00512452633         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/25/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    November 25, 2013
    No. 12-20594
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    SYNACA THOMAS,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:11-CR-473-1
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Synaca Thomas pleaded guilty to conspiring to make and possess
    counterfeit federal reserve notes, making counterfeit federal reserve notes, and
    possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences
    totaling 262 months. He now appeals, arguing that the Government breached
    his plea agreement, that the court applied the wrong Guideline to determine his
    base offense level, that the court erred by increasing his sentence for obstruction
    of justice, and that his sentence is unreasonable.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 12-20594     Document: 00512452633      Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/25/2013
    No. 12-20594
    His claim that the Government breached its agreement not to oppose
    credit for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed only for plain error. See
    Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 132-33 (2009); United States v. Hebron,
    
    684 F.3d 554
    , 558 (5th Cir. 2012). Thomas must show a forfeited error that was
    clear and obvious beyond reasonable dispute and that affected his substantial
    rights; then we have discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the
    integrity, fairness and public reputation of he judicial proceedings. See Hebron,
    684 F.3d at 558.
    Given that Thomas attempted to smuggle marijuana into the jail after his
    plea, it is not clear and obvious that the Government remained obligated not to
    oppose credit for acceptance. See Puckett, 
    556 U.S. at 135
    , 140 n.2. But even if
    we assume error, there is no showing that it affected Thomas’s substantial
    rights. In light of his continued criminal activity, as well as his obstruction of
    justice that we address below, he was not entitled to this credit, and nothing in
    the record suggests that the court likely would have given such a credit,
    regardless of the Government’s comments. See Puckett, 
    556 U.S. at 141-42
    ;
    Hebron, 684 F.3d at 59; cf. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 
    513 F.3d 204
    , 211
    (5th Cir. 2008) (noting that obstruction of justice typically precludes credit for
    acceptance of responsibility); United States v. Rickett, 
    89 F.3d 224
    , 227 (5th Cir.
    1996) (denying credit due to continued criminal activity).
    We reject Thomas’s contention that, because his crime involved altering
    legitimate bank notes, the district court wrongly applied U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 to
    determine his base offense level.      That counterfeiting Guideline has been
    applicable to altered notes since 2009, and it was properly applied even though
    the conspiracy began before the effective date of the amended Guideline because
    Thomas continued to commit his crimes beyond its effective date. See United
    States v. Olis, 
    429 F.3d 540
    , 544-45 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting the applicability of
    amended guidelines to continuing offenses).
    2
    Case: 12-20594     Document: 00512452633      Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/25/2013
    No. 12-20594
    The district court also properly increased Thomas’s sentence based on a
    finding that he obstructed justice by threatening potential witnesses and their
    child. His reliance on United States v. Lister, 
    53 F.3d 66
    , 69 (5th Cir. 1995), for
    the proposition the obstruction increase applies only when the defendant is
    aware of an ongoing federal investigation is misplaced and outdated. As of 2006,
    the Guidelines provide that the obstruction need only be “with respect to the
    investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction”
    rather than during the investigation. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (emphasis added).
    Under the current Guideline, obstruction “that occurred prior to the start of the
    investigation of the instant offense of conviction may be covered by this guideline
    if the conduct was purposefully calculated, and likely, to thwart the investigation
    or prosecution of the offense of conviction.”     § 3C1.1, comment. (n.1).      In
    Thomas’s case, the threats against witnesses were clearly and explicitly aimed
    at thwarting any investigation of his federal crime.        See United States v.
    Alexander, 
    602 F.3d 639
    , 641-42 (5th Cir. 2010) (finding the requisite nexus
    between hiding a firearm and a drug offense). This contention is frivolous.
    Finally, Thomas fails to show that his sentence was unreasonable. As we
    have explained, his challenges to the guideline calculations lack merit. His
    consecutive sentences within the proper advisory guideline range are presumed
    reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 
    435 F.3d 551
    , 554 (5th Cir. 2006)
    (applying presumption); see also United States v. Candia, 
    454 F.3d 468
    , 473 (5th
    Cir. 2006) (applying presumption to consecutive sentences); 
    18 U.S.C. § 3584
    (authorizing consecutive sentences).        Thomas’s invitation to adopt his
    assessment of the sentencing factors, including his arguments about sentence
    disparity, is directly contrary to the deferential review mandated by Gall v.
    United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). His disagreement with the district court
    as to the propriety of the sentence does not rebut the presumption of
    reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 
    621 F.3d 390
    , 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    3