United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40448
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAGOBERTO MALDONADO, JR,
also known as Apache,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-02-CR-600-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dagoberto Maldonado, Jr., appeals from his bench-trial
conviction and sentence for conspiring to launder monetary
instruments and laundering monetary instruments. He first argues
that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence obtained from the search of his home. He specifically
challenges the district court’s finding that his consent was an
act of independent free will. After close examination of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-40448
-2-
underlying facts, this court holds that the district court did
not err in finding that Maldonado’s consent was an act of
independent free will. See United States v. Kelley, 981 F.2d
1464, 1471-72 (5th Cir. 1993).
Maldonado argues that the district court erred by failing to
decrease his sentence for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. As Maldonado has failed to show that the
district court’s denial of an adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility was without foundation, that denial must be
affirmed. See United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th
Cir. 1999).
Maldonado also argues that the district court’s application
of an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, to his sentence was erroneous because the
district court’s findings that the adjustment was warranted by
Maldonado’s perjured testimony at the suppression hearing were
insufficiently specific. Close examination of the record shows
that the district court made sufficiently specific findings
regarding the adjustment for obstruction of justice. See United
States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.