Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Santiago Ruiz-Padilla, also known as Antonio Bartalon-Lopez, also known as Antonio Lopez

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-20064
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SANTIAGO RUIZ-PADILLA, also known as Antonio Bartalon-Lopez, also known
as Antonio Lopez
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-259-ALL
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Santiago Ruiz-Padilla (Ruiz) has appealed the sentence imposed following
entry of his guilty plea to the charge of illegal reentry into the United States
after deportation. Ruiz contends that the district court erred in refusing to
adjust his sentencing guidelines offense level for acceptance of responsibility
because in a written statement to the court, in which he admitted that he had
broken the law, Ruiz signed his name falsely using one of his aliases.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 10, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-20064
2
Ruiz argues that he pleaded guilty soon after his new attorney was
appointed and without benefit of a written plea agreement; that he freely
admitted that he had violated the law by entering the United States illegally
after deportation and that his real name was Santiago Ruiz-Padilla; that the
district court was aware that he sometimes used the alias Antonio Bartolon
Lopez; and that he explained to the district court that he had signed his
statement using that name because that was the name he gave at the time of his
arrest. He argues that he was just trying to be consistent and truthful.
Ruiz’s argument is based on a faulty premise. The record reflects that
Ruiz gave another name, Santiago Ruiz, at the time of his arrest.
The district court’s ruling is given great deference by this court and was
not without foundation. See United States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626, 630 (5th
Cir. 2006); United States v. Patino-Cardenas, 85 F.3d 1133, 1136 (5th Cir. 1996).
Ruiz has not shown that the district court committed a significant procedural
error or that it abused its discretion in refusing to adjust Ruiz’s offense level for
acceptance of responsibility. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97
(2007). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --