United States v. Soto Parra

In United States v. Soto Parra, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-50487 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that the district court committed plain error by applying an obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement based on lies the defendant had told initially when he was arrested.

Under USSG § 3C1.1, the Sentencing Guidelines will be enhanced by two levels if the defendant:

(1) 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…

But “not all false statements to law enforcement justify the enhancement.” United States v. Phillips, 210 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 2000). Typically, this enhancement applies to “egregiously wrongful behavior whose execution requires a significant amount of planning and presents an inherently high risk that justice will in fact be obstructed.” United States v. Mendoza-Gomez, 69 F.4th 273, 277 (5th Cir. 2023) (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 235 (5th Cir. 1998)).

The commentary to USSG § 3C1.1 includes “non-exhaustive lists of conduct the enhancement does and does not cover,” and courts compare the defendant’s conduct to those lists to determine whether to apply § 3C1.1. For instance, making unsworn false statements to police does not qualify unless the “materially false statement … significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense.” § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(G).

The Fifth Circuit explained the relevant facts in this case:

Here, the district court based its determination that § 3C1.1 applied on three unsworn statements Soto Parra made: (1) the false statement to the initial CBP officer that he did not possess a weapon or ammunition; (2) the statements in his post-arrest interview in which he went back and forth on whether he knew it was illegal to transport a firearm into Mexico; and (3) the false statements that he did not have a criminal history background even though he was on deferred adjudication.

Statements 2 and 3 did not lead officers on a misdirected investigation or cause investigators to “expend any additional resources on their investigation.” And Statement 1 did not, on this record, cause investigators to expend any additional resources, even though it caused them to send Soto Parra for a secondary inspection. “[W]ithout more, dishonesty does not normally warrant the § 3C1.1 enhancement.”

For those reasons, the Fifth Circuit vacated Soto Parra’s sentence and remanded his case for a new sentencing hearing.