United States v. Martinez-Hernandez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-51092 Document: 00516894154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51092
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jesus Ivan Martinez-Hernandez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-189-1
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jesus Ivan Martinez-Hernandez appeals his 41-month sentence for
transporting undocumented immigrants into the United States in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II) & (B)(ii). Martinez-Hernandez argues that
the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction
of justice under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3C1.1 because there
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51092 Document: 00516894154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-51092
was no finding by the court that he willfully engaged in obstructive conduct
when he failed to appear for his sentencing hearing. In the district court,
Martinez-Hernandez’s counsel asserted his client had erred as to the hearing
date and made arrangements to turn himself in to authorities later that same
day. The Government argues that the district court did not err because it
adopted the finding of the presentence report (PSR) that Martinez-
Hernandez willfully failed to appear, that the district court’s comments
suggested it did not believe Martinez-Hernandez’s explanation for failing to
appear for sentencing, and that there is no evidence to suggest that Martinez-
Hernandez was on his way to court until after he learned about an arrest
warrant for his failure to appear.
A district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is
reviewed de novo and its factual findings, such as the obstruction of justice
finding, are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 233
(5th Cir. 1998). The proponent of an adjustment must prove its applicability
by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690
(5th Cir. 1995).
In considering the term “willful” in the context of a failure to appear,
this court has concluded that it requires a conscious and intentional failure.
United States v. O’Callaghan, 106 F.3d 1221, 1223 (5th Cir. 1997). The
district court did not make findings that establish willfulness. See United
States v. Miller, 607 F.3d 144, 152 (5th Cir. 2010). Further, the record before
this court does not suffice for us to make a determination that Martinez-
Hernandez “willfully” obstructed justice. Rather, the district court
appeared to acknowledge that Martinez-Hernandez made a mistake as to the
hearing date, the Government did not offer evidence to the contrary, and the
PSR did not cite anything other than the failure to appear. Thus, a remand
for findings is warranted. See O’Callaghan, 106 F.3d at 1223; see also Miller,
607 F.3d at 152.
2
Case: 22-51092 Document: 00516894154 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-51092
Martinez-Hernandez also challenges the denial of a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(a). A denial of a reduction
under § 3E1.1 will not be reversed unless the decision is “without
foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir.
2008). The denial of the adjustment was based on the same grounds as the
obstruction enhancement. Thus, it should also be addressed anew on
remand.
Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND this matter
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3