Case: 22-40167 Document: 00516776003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 6, 2023
No. 22-40167 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carlos Daniel Uribe-Garza,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CR-601-1
______________________________
Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Carlos Daniel Uribe-Garza pleaded guilty to engaging in illicit sexual
conduct in foreign places and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines
range to 121 months of imprisonment. He now challenges the district court’s
imposition of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based, in relevant part, on jail calls that Uribe-Garza made
to the minor victim, M.I.R.G., before he was indicted for the instant offense.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40167 Document: 00516776003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2023
No. 22-40167
I.
Uribe-Garza was indicted on March 23, 2021, for transportation of an
illegal alien (Count One). On April 20, 2021, he was charged in a superseding
indictment with engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places (Count
Two). He pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written agreement, to Count Two,
and the Government dismissed Count One.
According to the presentence report (PSR), Uribe-Garza and his 15-
year-old passenger were detained when attempting to enter the United States
on February 24, 2021. Uribe-Garza was 22 years old at the time. The
passenger, a Mexican citizen and resident referred to as M.I.R.G., told
investigators that she had entered a relationship with Uribe-Garza less than
a year prior with her mother’s consent. She said that she became pregnant
with Uribe-Garza’s child and had planned to marry him, but their marriage
was postponed after she suffered a miscarriage. The night before they were
detained at the border, Uribe-Garza got into an argument with M.I.R.G.’s
mother and asked M.I.R.G. to come to the United States with him. Without
her mother’s knowledge or consent, M.I.R.G. agreed. When M.I.R.G.’s
mother picked her up from the port of entry, she confirmed to investigators
that she had initially consented to M.I.R.G.’s relationship and marriage to
Uribe-Garza, but after the miscarriage, she decided there was no longer any
need for M.I.R.G. to marry and refused to sign a marriage consent form.
In response to an objection from the Government, the PSR applied a
two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1 based on phone calls that Uribe-Garza made while detained,
including calls to M.I.R.G. and a person referred to as Z.G., who had a prior
sexual relationship with Uribe-Garza when she was 16 years old. According
to a summary of calls made in March 2021, Uribe-Garza told a friend that he
did not understand why M.I.R.G. and her mother were cooperating with
2
Case: 22-40167 Document: 00516776003 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2023
No. 22-40167
investigators. He also told M.I.R.G. that he loved her and that he wanted to
be together again after his incarceration. After M.I.R.G. told Uribe-Garza
about her interview with investigators, Uribe-Garza told her that she did not
have to give a statement and that he had decided to admit what he had done
so she did not have to cooperate. He then got angry and yelled at M.I.R.G.
because he was upset that he was incarcerated, but he quickly apologized and
told her that everything she said could be used against him, that it would be
better for her to not say anything, that he blamed her for his situation, and
that he could get raped or killed in prison because of her.
Uribe-Garza objected in writing to the application of the § 3C1.1
enhancement, arguing that he did not discourage M.I.R.G. from cooperating
and that the jail calls reflect that he intended to accept responsibility for his
offense, which he believed would save M.I.R.G. from having to testify. He
also asserted that most of his comments on the jail calls were unrelated to the
underlying criminal investigation.
At sentencing, the district court overruled Uribe-Garza’s objection,
adopted the PSR’s findings, and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 121
months of imprisonment. Uribe-Garza timely filed a notice of appeal. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).
II.
Section 3C1.1 provides for a two-level enhancement if “(1) 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, and (2) the
obstructive conduct related to” the “offense of conviction and any relevant
conduct” or “a closely related offense.” § 3C1.1. The guideline
commentary states that the enhancement applies to various types of
obstructive conduct, including “threatening, intimidating, or otherwise
3
Case: 22-40167 Document: 00516776003 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/06/2023
No. 22-40167
unlawfully influencing” a witness, “directly or indirectly, or attempting to
do so.” § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(A).
The decision to assess a § 3C1.1 enhancement is a factual finding that
we review for clear error. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208
(5th Cir. 2008). Under this standard, “we will uphold a finding so long as it
is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Ekanem, 555
F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
III.
Given that the record reflects that Uribe-Garza told M.I.R.G. that she
did not have to give a statement to investigators, everything she said could be
used against him, and it would be better for her not to say anything, the
district court’s finding that Uribe-Garza willfully attempted to obstruct or
impede the underlying investigation was plausible in light of the record as a
whole. See Ekanem, 555 F.3d at 175. Although Uribe-Garza asserts that he
made those statements to M.I.R.G. because he had decided to admit to his
offense conduct so she did not have to testify, this is, at best, one permissible
view of the evidence. However, “the choice by a trier of fact between two
permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous.” Brumfield v.
Cain, 808 F.3d 1041, 1066 (5th Cir. 2015). Here, the district court was
entitled to infer from the evidence that Uribe-Garza’s actions “were a
conscious and deliberate attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to impede
the Government’s investigation.” United States v. Price, No. 21-20629, 2023
WL 2447446, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023) (citing United States v. Upton, 91
F.3d 677, 688 (5th Cir. 1996)); see also United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228,
241 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
4