United States v. Mondragon

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10210
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Victor Mondragon,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CR-136-3

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Victor Mondragon appeals his concurrent, within-guidelines
sentences of 97 months of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea
convictions of one count of aiding and abetting and possession with intent to
distribute marijuana and one count of conspiracy to distribute and possession

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-10210 Document: 00515629765 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2020

No. 20-10210
2
with intent to distribute marijuana. His total offense level included an
upward adjustment for obstruction of justice, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1,
because he failed to appear for sentencing in 2001. He argues that the district
court erred by declining to grant him a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, contending that his case is of the
extraordinary kind where both the §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 adjustment may apply.
This court will “affirm the denial of a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility unless it is without foundation, a standard of review more
deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Lord, 915
F.3d 1009, 1017, cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 320 (2019) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Conduct resulting in an enhancement for obstruction
of justice, pursuant to § 3C1.1, “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has
not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” § 3E1.1, comment.
(n.4). Yet, there may be extraordinary cases in which both adjustments
apply. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); United States v. Chung, 261 F.3d 536, 540
(5th Cir. 2001).
Mondragon initially minimized his involvement in the offense of
conviction and failed to appear for sentencing in 2001, remaining at large for
18 years. His acceptance of responsibility following his rearrest does not
overcome the obstruction enhancement for absconding. See United States v.
Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1995). Although he asserts his failure to
appear was based on good reasons and not on lack of acceptance, given the
facts surrounding his abscondence, the district court’s conclusion that
extraordinary circumstances did not justify the award of a reduction
acceptance of responsibility is not without foundation.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-10210 Document: 00515629765 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2020