United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20217
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LORENZO SARINAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CR-264-2
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lorenzo Sarinas appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty plea convictions for conspiracy to commit passport fraud;
delivery and misuse of a passport, aiding and abetting; and
failure to appear, aiding and abetting. He argues that (1) the
district court clearly erred in enhancing his sentence for
obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (2003);
(2) the district court clearly erred in enhancing his sentence
for an aggravating role pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) (2003);
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20217
-2-
(3) the district court erred in upwardly departing; and, for the
first time on appeal, (4) his sentence was violative of Blakely
v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
We hold that the record supports the district court’s
findings that (1) Sarinas obstructed justice when he unlawfully
influenced Alan August by asking August to lie to law enforcement
regarding August’s acquisition of the passports at issue and
(2) Sarinas played a supervisory role in the offense based on,
inter alia, his recruitment of August and his (Sarinas’s) degree
of participation in the offense. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.1, comment,
(n.4(a)), 3B1.1(c); United States v. Fullwood, 342 F.3d 409, 415
(5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004). Therefore,
the district court did not clearly err in enhancing his sentence
pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.1 or 3B1.1(c), respectively. See
United States v. Villanueva, No. 03-20812, 2005 WL 958221, at *8
n.9 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2005).
For the first time on appeal, Sarinas argues that the
district court’s decision to upwardly departure pursuant to
application note three of U.S.S.G. § 2L2.1 is insupportable
because the false passports at issue were not used to commit an
“especially serious” felony offense. Review is therefore for
plain error only. See United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 830
(5th Cir. 1998). We hold that the district court did not plainly
err in finding that the felony offense of aiding in the
international flight of an individual charged with murder-for-
No. 04-20217
-3-
hire was “especially serious” and, therefore, justification for
its decision to depart. As this basis is, standing alone,
sufficient to support the departure, we do not reach the
propriety of the district court’s alternative bases in support
thereof.
Finally, the record indicates that Sarinas admitted under
oath at his rearraignment the facts used to support the
obstruction of justice and aggravating role enhancements.
Therefore, these enhancements did not implicate the Sixth
Amendment. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 752,
755-56 (2005); Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at 2537. With regard to his
upward departure, Sarinas cannot show that the district court
would have reached a significantly different result had he been
sentenced under an advisory Guidelines regime because the
decision to upwardly depart was within the district court’s
discretion; therefore, he cannot show plain error. See United
States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.), petition for cert.
filed, No. 04-9517 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005); U.S.S.G. § 2L2.1,
comment. (n.3).
AFFIRMED.