Filed: Dec. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20080 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MANUEL D. GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-178-3 - - - - - - - - - - December 4, 1996 Before KING, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Manuel Guzman argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level for obstruc
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-20080 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MANUEL D. GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-178-3 - - - - - - - - - - December 4, 1996 Before KING, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Manuel Guzman argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level for obstruct..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20080
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL D. GUZMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CR-178-3
- - - - - - - - - -
December 4, 1996
Before KING, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manuel Guzman argues that the district court erred in
increasing his offense level for obstruction of justice and in
denying him a reduction in his offense level for the acceptance
of responsibility.
The record supports the district court’s determination that
Guzman provided materially false testimony at the sentencing
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-20080
- 2 -
hearing. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in
applying the upward adjustment to Guzman’s offense level based on
an obstruction of justice. See United States v. Montan-Silva,
15
F.3d 52 (5th Cir. 1994); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
The district court did not err in denying Guzman a reduction
of his offense level for the acceptance of responsibility because
Guzman denied the commission of relevant conduct and attempted to
minimize his role in the offense. See United States v. Smith,
13
F.3d 860, 866 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
114 S. Ct. 2151 (1994);
United States v. Rivas,
85 F.2d 193, 195 (1996). Further, Guzman
has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that justify an
adjustment for the obstruction of justice and for the acceptance
of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment (n.4).
AFFIRMED.