United States v. Chamorro-Garcia , 70 F. App'x 786 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 30, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 02-41681
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN ANTONIO CHAMORRO-GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-02-CR-528-1
__________________________________________
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Antonio Chamorro-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for
transporting aliens within the United States by means of a motor vehicle for financial gain. He
first argues that the Government breached the plea agreement by not moving the court for a
reduction in his offense level of two levels for acceptance of responsibility.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and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.
At sentencing, the Government’s counsel acknowledged that the plea agreement contained
an unqualified requirement that the Government move for an acceptance-of-responsibility
adjustment. The Government’s counsel’s further comments about that adjustment are most
reasonably viewed as an explanation of why the probation officer had not recommended an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Chamorro-Garcia has failed to show plain error
regarding this issue. See United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2003).
Chamorro-Garcia also argues that the record does not support the district court’s finding
that he was an organizer of the offense.
Based on interviews with material witnesses, the probation officer determined that
Chamorro-Garcia had made all of the prior arrangements with the aliens and had organized their
trip north, and Chamorro-Garcia offered no rebuttal evidence but only self-serving assertions that
he was not supposed to receive any money and that he was not an organizer or leader.
Chamorro-Garcia has not shown that the presentence report was inaccurate, and the district court
did not clearly err in finding that he was an organizer of the offense. See United States v. Lage,
183 F.3d 374, 383 (5th Cir. 1999).
Finally, Chamorro-Garcia argues that the district court erred in not awarding him a three-
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Chamorro-Garcia was under an obligation not to
falsely deny any relevant conduct, “on pain of losing any leniency based on acceptance of
responsibility.” United States v. Pierce, 237 F.3d 693, 695 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court
found that Chamorro-Garcia did make false denials with regard to the financial aspect of the
offense and his role of organizer, and the district court’s decision not to reduce his offense level
2
under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 was not without foundation. See id. The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED. Chamorro-Garcia’s unopposed motion to supplement the record is GRANTED.
3