USA v. Ronnie Quijano

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14476
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00200-WTM-GRS-10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNIE QUIJANO,
a.k.a. Ronnie,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 5, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Quijano appeals his 41-month sentence, imposed at the low end of
the applicable guideline range, after he pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense
Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2
of one count for conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and
distribute 50 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal,
Quijano argues that the district court should not have denied him credit for
acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) because he admitted to all
elements of the offense to which he was pleading and later offered assistance to the
government for a codefendant’s trial. For those same reasons, Quijano also argues
that the district court wrongly enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice
under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. He concludes that the district court’s enhancement of his
sentence for obstruction of justice and failure to consider his acceptance of
responsibility render his sentence unreasonable. After thorough review, we affirm.
A district court’s determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) is a finding of
fact that is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless
clearly erroneous. United States v. Frank, 247 F.3d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 2001).
Quijano did not raise the obstruction of justice question below, so we review that
finding for plain error. United States v. Johnson, 694 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir.
2012). Plain error occurs when there is an error that is plain or obvious, affecting
the defendant’s substantive rights and that seriously affects the fairness, integrity
or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. We review sentences for
Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

3
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1186 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
A sentencing court may decrease the offense level by two if the defendant
clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Entering a
guilty plea and truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of
conviction, while also truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any additional
relevant conduct, is significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility. Id. cmt.
n.3. However, this evidence may be outweighed by conduct inconsistent with such
acceptance. Id. Conduct resulting in an enhancement for obstruction of justice
ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility. Id. cmt. n.4.
The Sentencing Guidelines permit a court to increase the offense level by
two if the defendant obstructed justice with respect to the investigation,
prosecution, or sentencing of the offense, and the obstructive conduct related to the
offense or a closely related offense. Id. § 3C1.1. Examples of such conduct
include committing perjury or providing materially false information to a judge or
probation officer conducting a presentence investigation. Id. cmt. n.4.
A sentence can be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly
calculates the guideline range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007). If the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound,
we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. Id. Although we do
Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4
not presume that sentences within the guideline range, like the one here, are
reasonable, we do ordinarily expect them to be. United States v. Joseph, No. 09-
11984, slip op. 1044, 1068 (11th Cir. Feb. 21, 2013). When sentencing, courts
must consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of the offense and
the history and characteristics of the defendant, as well as the need for the sentence
imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1)-(2), (6).
Quijano’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. His false
statements to the district court and probation office plainly constitute obstruction of
justice and clearly demonstrate that he did not accept responsibility, even though
he pleaded guilty and offered assistance to the government. These false statements
related to drug use and his offense conduct, and therefore he was properly denied
the potential benefit of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. His false
statements also significantly reduced the value of his offered testimony to the
government because they subjected him to impeachment, and therefore the district
court’s obstruction of justice enhancement was not plainly erroneous. The district
court properly calculated the applicable guideline range, rendering his sentence
procedurally reasonable. Moreover, given Quijano’s criminal history and the
Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

5
extensive nature of his criminal activity here, the need to promote respect for the
law, and his false statements, his low-end guideline sentence cannot be said to be
substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion, and we
affirm Quijano’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 12-14476 Date Filed: 06/05/2013 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --