United States v. Santos ( 2002 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-20897
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSCAR ANTONIO SANTOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-01-CR-259-1)
April 30, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Oscar Antonio Santos appeals his sentence following his guilty
plea to: conspiracy to commit mail theft, 18 U.S.C. § 371;
unlawful possession of stolen mail, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 1708; unlawful
possession of a counterfeited United States Postal Service key, 18
U.S.C. §§ 2 & 1704; and illegal reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. He challenges upward adjustments imposed pursuant to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (obstruction of justice) and § 3B1.4 (use of minor
to commit offense).
“A district court’s finding that a defendant has obstructed
justice under section 3C1.1 is a factual finding and thus, reviewed
for clear error.” United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th
Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1084 (1995). The finding that
Santos obstructed justice when he misrepresented his identity and
personal history to the probation officer was not clearly
erroneous. Santos maintains his misrepresentations were not
material; but, “a defendant’s personal history is always pertinent
to sentencing; the court must know whom it is sentencing in order
to sentence properly”. United States v. Montano-Silva, 15 F.3d 52,
53 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
Assuming arguendo error in the application of the U.S.S.G. §
3B1.4 enhancement, it was harmless; the enhancement did not affect
the applicable Guideline range and the record indicates the
district court would have imposed the same sentence regardless.
See United States v. Johnson, 961 F.2d 1188, 1189-90 (5th Cir.
1992) (no remand required where error had no effect on applicable
Guideline range and record as a whole does not suggest sentence was
influenced by the error).
AFFIRMED
2