United States v. Hacha
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17746
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hacha extorted Tenorio by threatening Solano and her children; Tenorio paid about $55,000 before contacting the FBI.
- Hacha and Solano were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion and extortion; both pled guilty.
- District court applied a two-level loss enhancement and a three-level enhancement for demonstrated ability to carry out threats.
- Hacha challenged the loss amount and the mitigation/enhancement designations at sentencing; Tenorio testified as to repayment and Solano’s lending history.
- Judge found threats against Tenorio and his parents showed demonstrated ability; threats against Solano/children were not treated as hostage indicators.
- Hacha argued for acceptance-of-responsibility discount despite obstruction; the court denied it due to obstruction and inconsistent conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the loss/amount enhancement appropriate? | Hacha argues loss measure contested; disputed amount of extortion. | Hacha contends the loss figure should not support two-level increase. | Affirmed loss-based two-level enhancement (amounts exceeded $50,000). |
| Did Hacha demonstrably possess the ability to carry out threats warranting the 3-level enhancement? | Hacha asserts no demonstrated ability against Solano/children; Tenorio’s risk key. | Hacha maintains threats to Tenorio evidenced ability to carry out; address/parent information shown. | Upheld 3-level enhancement for demonstrated ability against Tenorio/parents. |
| Should acceptance of responsibility be denied due to obstruction of justice? | Hacha cooperated and pleaded guilty, so acceptance should apply. | Obstruction was present and not trivial; discount not warranted. | Denial of acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment upheld. |
| Can obstruction later be offset by acceptance when non-infringing conduct occurred? | Post-plea repentance could mitigate, per some circuits. | Courts reject routine offset; Hopper-like reasoning governs. | Rejected Ninth Circuit approach; obstruction not excused; no acceptance discount. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mussayek, 338 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (demonstrated ability context in extortion guideline)
- United States v. Alcala, 352 F.3d 1153 (7th Cir. 2003) (threats with show of force can trigger enhancement)
- United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2001) (threats to enforce loan/obligations under coercion)
- United States v. Buckley, 192 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 1999) (nontrivial obstruction generally defeats acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Hopper, 27 F.3d 378 (9th Cir. 1994) (exceptional case for accepting responsibility despite obstruction)
- United States v. Kumar, 617 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2010) (false denial of relevant conduct affects acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007) (factors for acceptance of responsibility despite obstruction)
- United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011) (acknowledges general treatment of acceptance vs obstruction)