Filed: Feb. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 01-1109 (D.C. No. 00-CR-371-D) LOUISA M. LUCERO, (D. Colo.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA , Chief Judge, PORFILIO , Circuit Judge, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 01-1109 (D.C. No. 00-CR-371-D) LOUISA M. LUCERO, (D. Colo.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA , Chief Judge, PORFILIO , Circuit Judge, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request ..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 6 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-1109
(D.C. No. 00-CR-371-D)
LOUISA M. LUCERO, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Judge, PORFILIO , Circuit Judge, and BRORBY , Senior
Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant Louisa Lucero pleaded guilty to false impersonation of a federal
employee, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912. In exchange for her guilty plea, the
government agreed to dismiss the two other charges remaining from her
indictment. The government also agreed that she was entitled, under the
governing sentencing guidelines, to a reduction from the base offense level,
because she accepted responsibility for her offense. During the presentence
investigation, Ms. Lucero provided a letter from her doctor, purportedly
discussing various medical problems from which she was suffering. The letter,
Ms. Lucero later admitted, was not written by her doctor nor did he know that it
was sent over his signature. Ms. Lucero told the sentencing court that she
obtained the letter from a friend who worked in the doctor’s office.
At sentencing, Ms. Lucero agreed with the government that the submission
of the false letter barred her from receiving the reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. She objected, however, to the sentencing court’s decision, again as
a result of the letter, to impose a two-level increase on her for obstructing justice
within the meaning of USSG § 3C1.1.
Ms. Lucero appeals that sentencing ruling. Her appellate counsel submitted
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California ,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
were not meritorious issues on appeal. In particular, it stated that in imposing the
-2-
two-level increase for obstruction of justice, the sentencing court correctly
applied the sentencing guidelines. We agree.
To enhance a sentence under USSG § 3C1.1, the government must show
that the defendant acted consciously, with the specific purpose of obstructing
justice. United States v. Hernandez ,
967 F.2d 456, 459 (10th Cir. 1992). When
the enhancement is based on false statements, the government must prove, among
other things, that the statements were material. See United States v. Copus ,
110
F.3d 1529, 1536 (10th Cir. 1997). We agree with the district court’s conclusion
that the forged letter is a material false statement, since it contained “information
that, if believed, would tend to influence or affect the issue under determination.”
USSG § 3C1.1, n.6.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED. Defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, pursuant to
Anders v. California , is GRANTED
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-3-