FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 28 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10583
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:15-cr-00646-BPV-1
v.
LANCE PARRA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, and EZRA,***
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Lance Parra (“Appellant”) appeals his 33-month sentence of imprisonment
for possessing a prohibited object in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2)
and (b)(1). He raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in
finding that he willfully obstructed justice; (2) whether the district court violated
his First Amendment right to free speech by applying an obstruction of justice
enhancement at sentencing; and (3) whether the district court erred by imposing a
substantively unreasonable sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We affirm.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite
them except to the extent necessary to aid in understanding this disposition.
1. United States Sentencing Guideline (“USSG”) § 3C1.1 authorizes a two-
level enhancement to a base offense level
[i]f (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 (A) the
defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (B) a
closely related offense . . . .
We review a district court’s factual determination under Section 3C1.1 for
clear error. United States v. Taylor, 749 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2014).
2
Appellant contends that the district court committed clear error in finding
that he willfully obstructed justice. We disagree. Appellant’s girlfriend gave
sworn testimony that Appellant instructed her not to speak to the FBI during the
FBI’s investigation into his instant offense conduct. The district court found his
girlfriend credible, and found that Mr. Parra was concerned that his girlfriend
might provide statements or information to the FBI that would further implicate
him in the crimes at issue. No record evidence exists to make the district court’s
finding illogical or implausible. United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 715 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the
factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (quoting United
States v. Working, 224 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc))). Therefore, the
district court did not commit clear error in finding that Appellant willfully
obstructed justice.
2. Appellant next argues that the application of the obstruction enhancement
unlawfully punishes him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.
Generally, an issue is deemed waived on appeal “if the argument was not
raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it.” Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.,
667 F.3d 1318, 1322 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec.
Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations
3
omitted)). In this case, Appellant failed to raise a First Amendment challenge
before the district court. Accordingly, he has waived this argument on appeal.
3. Finally, Appellant argues that his 33-month sentence of imprisonment is
substantively unreasonable because the district court did not adequately consider
his drug addiction and need for a shorter sentence due to rehabilitative concerns.
This Court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and
imposed a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines. While there is no presumption
that a Guidelines sentence is reasonable, it “will usually be reasonable.” Carty,
520 F.3d at 994 (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007)). Here,
that is the case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Appellant to 33 months’ imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
4