US v. Jose Maldonado, No. 10-4549 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4549 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE PEREZ MALDONADO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00125-WO-1) Submitted: March 14, 2011 Decided: March 31, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan Gates, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Terri-Lei O Malley, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Perez Maldonado appeals his 150-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to one count of distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). We affirm. Maldonado s guilty plea arose out of his arrest after he was captured trying to dispose of cocaine base in a sink during the execution of a search warrant on the home of a codefendant. after the The presentence investigation report ( PSR ) issued court indicated that criminal history Guidelines accepted with range an Maldonado s offense category was 87 level of to 108 guilty of III, plea. The twenty-eight Maldonado s months. However, PSR and a advisory because Maldonado was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum 120-month sentence, his advisory Guidelines range became 120 months. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). See Maldonado s offense level reflected a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(a) (2009). After pleading guilty, but before sentencing, Maldonado filed a Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. In the motion, Maldonado stated that his attorney had not brought a translator to jailhouse visits, and he was otherwise unable to communicate with his attorney. When examined by the district court regarding these claims, Maldonado 2 admitted that he could communicate with his attorney without a translator, and that his attorney had brought a translator to at least one of their meetings. Maldonado maintained, however, that he never tried to dispose of cocaine base and that he merely sold powder cocaine to another dealer. The court denied Maldonado s motion to dismiss the indictment, denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, allowed Maldonado s counsel to withdraw, and appointed substitute counsel. At sentencing, the district court heard testimony from Detective Sergeant Tim Cameron, who allegedly encountered and chased Maldonado and observed him attempting cocaine base, and from Maldonado himself. evidence, the court representations to concluded the to that Maldonado had made both court court struck the regarding his motion two-level downward of After hearing the dismiss and during his testimony at sentencing. the dispose false to Accordingly, adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and imposed a two-level enhancement for obstructing justice. Maldonado s revised offense level was thirty-two, resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. The court imposed a 150-month sentence. Maldonado timely appealed. On received appeal, the responsibility, Maldonado two-level and he argues that adjustment for should not 3 have he should acceptance received a have of two-level enhancement for obstructing justice. He does not assign error to his Fed R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy or to the district court s decision to deny his motion to the extent he sought dismissal of his indictment or withdrawal of his guilty plea. An appellate court reviews a sentence reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). consideration of both the reasonableness of a sentence. Gall v. This review requires procedural Id. for and substantive First, the court must assess whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered analyzed any the 18 arguments U.S.C. presented § 3553(a) by (2006) the sufficiently explained the selected sentence. factors, parties, and Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must United v. 564 (same). States Carter, accompany F.3d 325, every 330 sentence. ); (4th Cir. 2009) An extensive explanation is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). 4 We adjustment review for a district acceptance of court s decision responsibility for to deny clear an error. United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007). We must give great deference to the district court s decision because [t]he evaluate a sentencing defendant s judge is acceptance in of a unique position responsibility. (quoting USSG § 3E1.1 comment. (n.5)). to Id. To earn the reduction, a defendant must prove to the court by a preponderance of the evidence that accepted personal Id. (quoting he has responsibility United (4th Cir. 1996)). clearly States v. recognized for his Nale, and affirmatively criminal 101 F.3d conduct. 1000, 1005 False denials of relevant conduct can lead to the loss of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. USSG § 3E1.1 comment (n.1). We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the district court acceptance of did not err in responsibility. striking The the court adjustment concluded for that Maldonado falsely denied relevant offense conduct and attempted to mislead the court to escape the consequences of his guilty plea. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the court s judgment in this regard. We determination review that for a clear defendant error a district court s obstructed justice. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 560 (4th Cir. 2005). 5 According to USSG § 3C1.1, a defendant s base offense level is to be increased two levels for obstruction of justice if the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction[.] USSG § 3C1.1. The application notes for § 3C1.1 specifically include perjury by the defendant and providing materially false information to a judge or magistrate. (f). USSG § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(b), For purposes of § 3C1.1, the Supreme Court has defined perjury as false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). memory. United Under Dunnigan, it is preferable for a district court to address each element of the perjury in a separate and clear finding[,] 507 U.S. at 95, but it is sufficient if the district court makes a determination that encompasses all of the factual predicates for a finding of perjury. Id. Once again, we have reviewed the record and decline to disturb the specific sentencing district finding that court s regarding judgment. Maldonado his offense offered conduct. The court false made testimony Because such a at a finding is sufficient to warrant a USSG § 3C1.1 enhancement, we 6 conclude the district court did not err in imposing the enhancement. Maldonado assigns no further error to his sentence, and we accordingly affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
