United States v. Olivia Acosta-Delgado , 302 F. App'x 498 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-2050
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,      *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the Northern
    * District of Iowa.
    Olivia Acosta-Delgado,                 *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant - Appellant.     *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 9, 2008
    Filed: December 15, 2008
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Olivia Acosta-Delgado was convicted by a jury of 1) unlawful possession of an
    identification document with intent to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C.
    § 1028(a)(4) [Count I], 2) unlawful purchase and sale of a social security card, 42
    U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(A) [Count II], 3) aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1)
    [Count III], and 4) conspiracy to a) unlawfully possess an identification document
    with intent to defraud the United States, b) unlawfully buy and sell social security
    cards, and c) possess unlawfully obtained documents prescribed by statute or
    regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay in the United States or
    employment, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1028(a)(4), 1546, and 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(C)
    [Count IV]. The district court1 sentenced Acosta-Delgado within the applicable
    advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) ranges on Counts I, II, and IV, and
    imposed a mandatory minimum 24-month sentence on Count III. Acosta-Delgado
    appeals her convictions and sentences, arguing 1) sufficiency of the evidence, 2) the
    district court's application of the U.S.S.G. violated the Fifth Amendment, and 3) the
    sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
    At trial, a cooperating informant testified he met Acosta-Delgado in a hotel
    parking lot in Toledo, Iowa, on two occasions and paid her for an unlawfully obtained
    birth certificate and social security card. The witness identified Acosta-Delgado as
    the person from whom he obtained the documents. Mike Fischels, a Special Agent
    with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement testified he observed the transaction
    and positively identified Acosta-Delgado. Additionally, Agent Fischels testified he
    interviewed Acosta-Delgado and she admitted being the person who sold the
    documents to the informant in the parking lot.
    Acosta-Delgado testified at trial and denied being present at the transaction.
    She claimed her companion, Celia Pizano-Mendoza, to whom she bore a resemblance,
    delivered the documents. On appeal, she contends the informant had a difficult time
    identifying her at trial, and Agent Fischels was only present at the first meeting. She
    argues no reasonable jury could conclude, based on this evidence, she was the person
    observed at the transaction.
    We review sufficiency of the evidence de novo, and "will affirm if the record,
    viewed most favorably to the government, contains substantial evidence supporting
    the jury's verdict, which means evidence sufficient to prove the elements of the crime
    beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Lopez, 
    443 F.3d 1026
    , 1030 (8th Cir.)
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    (en banc), cert. denied, __ U.S. __ , 
    127 S. Ct. 214
    (2006). Questions of witness
    credibility are the province of the jury and are "virtually unreviewable on appeal,"
    United States v. Candie, 
    974 F.2d 61
    , 64 (8th Cir. 1992).
    Acosta-Delgado's sole argument attacking her convictions is the alleged
    infirmity of the eyewitness identifications. Despite her denials at trial, the jury chose
    to credit the witnesses' testimony. She offers nothing to suggest the testimony was
    otherwise incredible or unworthy of belief, and thus, we will not disturb the jury's
    findings.
    Acosta-Delgado next argues the district court violated her right to due process
    under the Fifth Amendment when it found by a preponderance of the evidence she
    obstructed justice and applied U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. This argument, having previously
    been rejected by this court, is without merit. See United States v. Negrete, 
    537 F.3d 918
    , 921-22 (8th Cir. 2008).
    Finally, Acosta-Delgado argues the district court's sentence was unreasonable
    in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the parsimony doctrine, which provides that the
    sentence imposed should be the least severe sanction necessary to achieve the purpose
    of sentencing.
    The record shows the district court carefully considered all relevant sentencing
    factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Acosta-Delgado within the
    advisory Guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, __ U.S. __ , 
    127 S. Ct. 2456
    ,
    2462 (2007) (holding presumption of reasonableness applies to sentence imposed
    within advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Garlewicz, 
    493 F.3d 933
    , 938 (8th
    Cir. 2007) (same); United States v. Long Soldier, 
    431 F.3d 1120
    , 1123 (8th Cir. 2005)
    (holding reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs
    if court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight,
    gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate
    -3-
    factors but commits clear error of judgment); see also United States v.
    Turbides-Leonardo, 
    468 F.3d 34
    , 41 (1st Cir. 2006) ("It will be the rare case in which
    a within-the-range sentence can be found to transgress the parsimony principle."), cert.
    denied, __U.S. __ , 
    127 S. Ct. 3064
    (2007).
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-