United States v. Duarte-Lanza

Case: 20-50783 Document: 00515829776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 20, 2021
No. 20-50783
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carlos Alberto Duarte-Lanza,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-246-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carlos Alberto Duarte-Lanza appeals the 21-month sentence imposed
following his jury trial conviction for illegal reentry into the United States
after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that the district
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50783 Document: 00515829776 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
No. 20-50783
court erred by determining that he was not entitled to a reduction of his
offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
“[W]e review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
sentencing guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.” United
States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1017 (5th Cir. 2019). However, we will affirm
the district court’s decision to deny a defendant a reduction for acceptance
of responsibility unless that decision is “without foundation, a standard of
review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Section 3E1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides
that an offense level may be reduced by two levels “[i]f the defendant clearly
demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” § 3E1.1(a). The
adjustment “is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the
government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual
elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses
remorse.” § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2). Nonetheless, a defendant who proceeds
to trial is not automatically precluded from receiving a reduction. § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.2). Therefore, in rare situations, “[a] defendant can proceed to
trial on issues not relating to factual guilt and still receive credit for
acceptance of responsibility.” United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222,
228 (5th Cir. 2003); see § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2).
Duarte-Lanza’s argument that he focused on purely legal issues at trial
is contradicted by the trial transcript. Although he argues that he admitted
his guilt to the arresting agents and the court, and only proceeded to trial to
preserve the legal issue that he had been mistreated by jail staff, he
nevertheless put the Government to its full burden of proof in contesting the
sufficiency of the evidence at trial. Duarte-Lanza did not stipulate to any
uncontested facts or elements at trial and, instead, challenged all elements of
2
Case: 20-50783 Document: 00515829776 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
No. 20-50783
the illegal-reentry offense. We have affirmed district court denials of a
§ 3E1.1 reduction where a defendant, much like Duarte-Lanza, proceeded to
trial and attacked the underlying elements of the offense. See, e.g., United
States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626, 631-32 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Pofahl,
990 F.2d 1456, 1485 (5th Cir. 1993).
Even if Duarte-Lanza could show that his was one of the “rare
situations” contemplated by § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2), his conduct and pre-
trial admissions do not show the requisite “sincere contrition.” United States
v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 575
(5th Cir. 1994). Finally, insofar as Duarte-Lanza argues that his mental
health issues caused him to believe that his alleged mistreatment in jail was
somehow related to the illegal-reentry offense, this argument is belied by the
record. Regardless of how untenable it may have been, Duarte-Lanza was
aware of the consequences of proceeding to trial and chose to take that risk.
Accordingly, Duarte-Lanza has not shown that the district court erred
in denying him an acceptance of responsibility reduction. See Lord, 915 F.3d
at 1017.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3