United States v. Lance Parra
671 F. App'x 465
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Appellant Lance Parra was convicted of possessing a prohibited object in prison in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2) and (b)(1) and sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level USSG § 3C1.1 obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
- The enhancement was based on testimony from Parra's girlfriend that Parra instructed her not to speak to the FBI during the investigation.
- The district court found the girlfriend credible and concluded Parra willfully obstructed justice by trying to prevent her cooperation.
- Parra raised three issues on appeal: (1) clear-error challenge to the obstruction finding; (2) First Amendment challenge to the enhancement; and (3) claim that the 33-month sentence was substantively unreasonable given his drug addiction and rehabilitation needs.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the clear-error challenge, deeming the First Amendment issue waived for failure to raise it below, and finding the sentence not substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred in finding willful obstruction under USSG § 3C1.1 | Parra: no willful obstruction; facts do not support enhancement | Government: girlfriend's sworn testimony shows Parra instructed her not to speak to the FBI, supporting willfulness | No clear error; court credited girlfriend's testimony and the finding was permissible |
| Whether applying the obstruction enhancement punished protected speech (First Amendment) | Parra: enhancement penalizes exercise of free speech | Government: enhancement applies to obstructive conduct; not raised below | Waived on appeal for failure to raise in district court |
| Whether 33-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Parra: sentence fails to adequately account for drug addiction and rehabilitative needs; argues for a shorter term | Government: district court considered § 3553(a) factors and imposed low-end Guidelines sentence | No abuse of discretion; low-end Guidelines sentence usually reasonable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 749 F.3d 842 (9th Cir.) (review of Section 3C1.1 factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710 (9th Cir.) (factfinder’s permissible choice between two views is not clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Working, 224 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (same principle regarding clear-error review)
- Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir.) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.) (sentencing reasonableness review and Guidelines presumptions)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S.) (a within-Guidelines sentence will usually be reasonable)