USA v. Juan Rios-Garcia, No. 13-20313 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-20313 Document: 00512664810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-20313 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. JUAN CARLOS RIOS-GARCIA, also known as Juan Carlos Rios, also known as Juan Carlos Garcia, also known as Juan Carlos Rios Garcia, also known as Carlos Rios Garcia, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-671-1 Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Carlos Rios-Garcia challenges his within-Guidelines sentence of, inter alia, 51 months imprisonment, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Similar to his objection in district court, Rios claims, in the light of his mental illness, the district court clearly erred by applying a two-level Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 13-20313 Document: 00512664810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 No. 13-20313 sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, resulting in an unreasonable sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (obstructing or impeding the administration of justice). Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the Guidelinessentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A finding of obstruction of justice under [Guideline] § 3C1.1 is a factual finding reviewed for clear error . United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436, 441 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court imposed an upward adjustment pursuant to Guideline § 3C1.1 because Rios told Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials he was a United States citizen by virtue of being born at an identified hospital in Texas. This assertion is material because it bears upon the issue of citizenship, which is central to an illegal-reentry prosecution. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n.6 (defining material ); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(3) (defining alien ), 1326 (reentry of removed aliens); see, e.g., United States v. Jara-Favela, 686 F.3d 289, 302 (5th Cir. 2012) (providing elements to prove illegal reentry); United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 498 (5th Cir. 2007) (applying obstruction enhancement). Therefore, the district court properly considered Rios false claim of citizenship as material for purposes of Guideline § 3C1.1. The district court did not clearly err either in concluding Rios willfully attempted to mislead officials as to his citizenship or in applying the sentencing enhancement. Rios erroneously asserts the psychiatrist s report 2 Case: 13-20313 Document: 00512664810 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 No. 13-20313 concludes he was incapable of willfully misleading officials due to his mental disorder. The psychiatrist s report notes the likelihood that Rios knew he was lying when he asserted he was a United States citizen. The record does not show clear error in connection with the imposition of the challenged adjustment. See Martinez, 263 F.3d at 441. Rios claim that his sentence was unreasonable, due to the claimed procedural error, fails because, as discussed above, there was no such error. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
